Naval needs of the Unified Netherlands

[Jefgte]

Interresting options

120m SW or DD is probably the max dispo in Netherland East Indies.
so, limit the lenght to 120m could be better.

Jef   ;)

[Tanthalas]

I once got into that trying to design a cruiser for colonial ports trap... and it is a trap, you end up building hsips that are sub standard just to make them fit in the docks...

Interresting options

120m SW or DD is probably the max dispo in Netherland East Indies.
so, limit the lenght to 120m could be better.

Jef   ;)

so you would go more somthing like this? I can see advantages, and disadvantages...  they are "fast" and "powerful" for their time but they cant realy grow very much.

Zeeland, Netherlands Armored Frigate laid down 1895 (Engine 1900)

Displacement:
   9,000 t light; 9,429 t standard; 10,832 t normal; 11,954 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (393.00 ft / 393.00 ft) x 63.00 ft x (27.00 / 29.24 ft)
   (119.79 m / 119.79 m) x 19.20 m  x (8.23 / 8.91 m)

Armament:
      4 - 11.00" / 279 mm 40.0 cal guns - 529.00lbs / 239.95kg shells, 90 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1895 Model
     2 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
      8 - 6.00" / 152 mm 45.0 cal guns - 100.00lbs / 45.36kg shells, 150 per gun
     Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1895 Model
     8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      12 - 4.00" / 102 mm 45.0 cal guns - 39.99lbs / 18.14kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1895 Model
     8 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
      8 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in all but light seas
     4 x Single mounts on side ends, evenly spread
      4 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in all but light seas
      Weight of broadside 3,396 lbs / 1,540 kg
      Main Torpedoes
      6 - 16.0" / 406 mm, 12.00 ft / 3.66 m torpedoes - 0.298 t each, 1.790 t total
   In 6 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   7.00" / 178 mm   267.00 ft / 81.38 m   13.50 ft / 4.11 m
   Ends:   4.00" / 102 mm   126.00 ft / 38.40 m   9.00 ft / 2.74 m
   Upper:   4.00" / 102 mm   274.00 ft / 83.52 m   9.00 ft / 2.74 m
     Main Belt covers 105 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   4.00" / 102 mm      7.00" / 178 mm
   2nd:   1.50" / 38 mm         -               -
   3rd:   4.00" / 102 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 2.50" / 64 mm
   Forecastle: 1.00" / 25 mm  Quarter deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 10.00" / 254 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 17,300 ihp / 12,906 Kw = 20.00 kts
   Range 10,000nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 2,525 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   530 - 690

Cost:
   £0.965 million / $3.861 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 614 tons, 5.7 %
      - Guns: 612 tons, 5.6 %
      - Weapons: 2 tons, 0.0 %
   Armour: 2,965 tons, 27.4 %
      - Belts: 1,684 tons, 15.5 %
      - Armament: 448 tons, 4.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 727 tons, 6.7 %
      - Conning Tower: 105 tons, 1.0 %
   Machinery: 2,703 tons, 25.0 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,683 tons, 24.8 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,832 tons, 16.9 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 35 tons, 0.3 %
      - On freeboard deck: 35 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     9,042 lbs / 4,101 Kg = 13.6 x 11.0 " / 279 mm shells or 6.1 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.28
   Metacentric height 3.9 ft / 1.2 m
   Roll period: 13.4 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 75 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.39
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.25

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.567 / 0.578
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.24 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19.82 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 60
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   20.00 %,  18.00 ft / 5.49 m,  18.00 ft / 5.49 m
      - Forward deck:   30.00 %,  18.00 ft / 5.49 m,  18.00 ft / 5.49 m
      - Aft deck:   35.00 %,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Quarter deck:   15.00 %,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Average freeboard:      13.50 ft / 4.11 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 104.2 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 82.6 %
   Waterplane Area: 17,560 Square feet or 1,631 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 99 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 110 lbs/sq ft or 539 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.92
      - Longitudinal: 2.06
      - Overall: 1.00
   Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Cramped accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

35 tons Misc. weight on torpedos and stuff

[Tanthalas]

Traditionaly I would go more like this... (what I have a thing for AQY ships)

Tromp, Netherlands Armoured Frigate laid down 1890

Displacement:
   9,004 t light; 9,361 t standard; 10,127 t normal; 10,740 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
   (393.00 ft / 393.00 ft) x 64.00 ft x (26.00 / 27.23 ft)
   (119.79 m / 119.79 m) x 19.51 m  x (7.92 / 8.30 m)

Armament:
      6 - 11.00" / 279 mm 40.0 cal guns - 529.00lbs / 239.95kg shells, 60 per gun
     Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1890 Model
     3 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread
      6 - 4.00" / 102 mm 40.0 cal guns - 39.99lbs / 18.14kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in casemate mounts, 1890 Model
     6 x Single mounts on side ends, majority forward
      6 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in all but light seas
      2 - 4.00" / 102 mm 40.0 cal guns - 39.99lbs / 18.14kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1890 Model
     2 x Single mounts on sides amidships
      2 hull mounts in casemates- Limited use in all but light seas
      6 - 4.00" / 102 mm 40.0 cal guns - 39.99lbs / 18.14kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1890 Model
     6 x Single mounts on centreline, aft evenly spread
      6 raised mounts
      10 - 1.50" / 38.1 mm 40.0 cal guns - 2.01lbs / 0.91kg shells, 150 per gun
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts, 1890 Model
     10 x Single mounts on centreline, aft deck forward
      10 raised mounts
      Weight of broadside 3,754 lbs / 1,703 kg

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   11.0" / 279 mm   270.38 ft / 82.41 m   13.50 ft / 4.11 m
   Ends:   6.00" / 152 mm   122.60 ft / 37.37 m   9.60 ft / 2.93 m
     Main Belt covers 106 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   11.0" / 279 mm   5.00" / 127 mm      10.0" / 254 mm
   2nd:   1.50" / 38 mm         -               -

   - Armoured deck - multiple decks:
   For and Aft decks: 2.00" / 51 mm
   Forecastle: 1.00" / 25 mm  Quarter deck: 1.00" / 25 mm

   - Conning towers: Forward 10.00" / 254 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
   Coal fired boilers, complex reciprocating steam engines,
   Direct drive, 2 shafts, 8,830 ihp / 6,587 Kw = 17.00 kts
   Range 4,600nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,379 tons (100% coal)

Complement:
   504 - 656

Cost:
   £0.881 million / $3.525 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 834 tons, 8.2 %
      - Guns: 834 tons, 8.2 %
   Armour: 3,508 tons, 34.6 %
      - Belts: 1,987 tons, 19.6 %
      - Armament: 821 tons, 8.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 599 tons, 5.9 %
      - Conning Tower: 101 tons, 1.0 %
   Machinery: 1,635 tons, 16.1 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,972 tons, 29.4 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,123 tons, 11.1 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 55 tons, 0.5 %
      - On freeboard deck: 55 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     10,814 lbs / 4,905 Kg = 16.2 x 11.0 " / 279 mm shells or 1.8 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
   Metacentric height 3.4 ft / 1.0 m
   Roll period: 14.6 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 74 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.54
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.46

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
     a normal bow and a cruiser stern
   Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.542 / 0.549
   Length to Beam Ratio: 6.14 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 19.82 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 42 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 51
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
            Fore end,    Aft end
      - Forecastle:   19.50 %,  18.00 ft / 5.49 m,  18.00 ft / 5.49 m
      - Forward deck:   30.50 %,  18.00 ft / 5.49 m,  18.00 ft / 5.49 m
      - Aft deck:   38.30 %,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Quarter deck:   11.70 %,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m,  9.00 ft / 2.74 m
      - Average freeboard:      13.50 ft / 4.11 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 82.3 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 85.5 %
   Waterplane Area: 17,422 Square feet or 1,619 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 101 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 129 lbs/sq ft or 631 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.92
      - Longitudinal: 2.04
      - Overall: 1.00
   Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
   Cramped accommodation and workspace room
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

55 tons misc. weight for stuff

[The Rock Doctor]

Your start-up expenses consist only of BP - cash costs aren't considered.

While ships cost $1 to $1.25 per BP, infrastructure costs several dollars per BP - so it makes sense to fully address your infrastructure needs in the start-up, rather than skimp on it and pay through the nose for it later.

[Tanthalas]

Sort of what I was thinking, im just sorta in a holding pattern atm... Waiting for someone to get back to me on my startup numbers LOL.

Your start-up expenses consist only of BP - cash costs aren't considered.

While ships cost $1 to $1.25 per BP, infrastructure costs several dollars per BP - so it makes sense to fully address your infrastructure needs in the start-up, rather than skimp on it and pay through the nose for it later.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Since I have recived aproval for my Unified Netherlands proposal I started looking at what I realy "need"... and I have come to a conclusion that somewhat saddens me.  With an empire that literaly spans the globe, im not sure my traditional "slow" heavily armed and armored ships would serve me all that well.  I am considering taking up the Jeune Ecole school of Naval thought honestly.  Opinions are welcome, and it most likley wont matter until im doing post startup ships.

So,
I played the Netherlands in Wesworld, but I didn't have a clean start, but built around my predecessor's warships in a much more hostile political clime.  Also, the Alliance that my predecessor joined had a European focus, driving the retention of a home fleet, and my allies had unbalanced navies, so my builds were done with an eye to the combined fleet. Oh, and I had to work around a Naval limitation treaty which hamstrung me.  So my answers are not necessarily your answers.

What I decided was that the Indies were a long way from help, sending the Home fleet would take considerable time and effort. The Indies and Home Fleet must be self contained. Further, the home fleet vessels had ranges allowing them to make the indian Ocean run with fuel to spare. Capital ships could make the loop around Iceland and the Horn and reach Batavia on their fuel bunkers, with a reserve. Also, I worked hard at a new version of Queen Wilhelmina's 1906 ethical policy to decrease the potential for insurrection by providing a clear path of domestic improvements - which also offset the main accusations of my opposition.

There were two means a hostile force would intervene in the Indies - raiding and amphibious invasion. There is additionally the potential interdiction of your supplies TO the Indies.
The last, with a hostile India, was a particular headache.

The East Indies are an island group, anyone conducting an amphibious invasion must send supplies from home.
To unload those supplies required either port facilities, or extensive time with lighters on over-the beach work.
To conduct amphibious raids, or commerce raids, there are only so many straits and choke points.
This led me to the belief in a "Tar Baby" defense.

Each potential harbor got basically a 1/2 regiment of troops and a couple batteries of coast artillery & AAA (guns cost, but "free" concrete & labor there).  Major ports got more.

Choke points, like Sunda Strait, Lombok Strait, the Straits of Malacca at Palau Karimun - those got heavier batteries and some minesweeping/laying vessels near.
In some cases, like P. Karimun, centralized 12" howitzers on turntables were meant to allow unreturnable fire on any landing beach.
This limited opposing movement within the Indies, as well as ensured that the Dutch could close those straits in wartime with no need for heavy naval commitments.
Yes, a capital at speed could dart through, but fleet support elements or maritime traffic would be immediately shut down.

There were a score or so of MTB bases , usually in conjunction with seaplane bases.
Strategic areas - Major resource (oil at Aceh, Tarakan, New Guiana) and cities were places for the presence of larger troop locations.

Overall the idea was - Go ahead, land your troops.  Anywhere you try, you need to bring heavy cruisers or better just to answer the coastal guns and get over the sand, and against a dug in 1/2 regiment you'll want about 3x....or a Regiment and a half, and armies hate bringing 1/2 a formation. Meaning you probably will bring 2 regiments.  That's a fair number of ships.

So now you have two or three dozen vessels committed for say a week.
Now, support them. You need more ships bringing cargo.

Now, your speed is irrelevant. You've pinned yourself on my beach.
My MTBs and torpedo-bearing seaplanes will have a lovely mass target, or if you commit enough naval warships there, are free to operate against your supply lines.

Meanwhile the Dutch fleet would be operating from centralized positions against your beachheads and supply lines. They could engage/disengage at will. Venture too deep in my islands to force them to battle and risk incessant hit and run attacks, and good luck with any damaged ship ever seeing home. 

So you really needed to start by reducing and eliminating those outer defenses first, and working your way into the DEI slowly, which each effort taking a substantial portion of the fleet assets.

All this meant that the DEI would not fall before the Home Fleet and allies could arrive, even if we had to stop and sink the Indian navy first (granted, I think the Indians were planning on not offering battle unless the odds were reasonable, I expected great effort against my SLOC not my battlefleet).

SO....I expect you'll have your own solutions, but hopefully the above perspective is useful to you.

The DEI are rich in resources and harbors.

Tarakan island, NE Borneo- Oil
Northern Sumatra & Aceh (in revolt late 1890s), - Oil
Balikpapan - Oil, oil refineries, harbor
Tjilapt - Indian Ocean port for Java
Soerabaja - Main base, eastern approach has 7.5m natural depth
Makassar - to restricted for heavy modern units
Ambon - looks like a lovely harbor. Moluccas have your longest tenure and most Christians.
New Guiana - had oil on north shore, not developed until late 1930s.
Palembang - River is navigable to sea, don't know depth
Medan, good harborage.
Jakarta/Batavia.

Other -
Due to the Wesworld Dutch Economy vs. my potential opponents, the legacy fleet and my SLOC issues, I wound up with a High/Low navy. There were a core of first class vessels, and a fair amount of older or lower tier vessels for numbers- think of the Brit's choice of the 6x8" heavy cruisers - sometimes just having the vessel to deploy becomes important.

As the 1930s wound down, I wound up realizing the Dutch couldn't afford to field a full fleet of 40,000+ ton battleships like the 1st rate powers were.
So I developed a high/low theory, where they would try to field 1 division of "1st line" battlewagons, and back them with 2nd class. The possession of the 1st Class BBs and CVs would mean the Dutch would still be perceived as having first rate assets as either an ally or a foe.

[Logi]

The Dutch find themselves in an interesting posistion, in Europe they have to be afraid of both France and Germany, Making the UK and Russia logical allies (enemy of my enemy and all that), however in the Pacific the UK is allied to Japan, making them less than ideal allies (seriously who would the UK pick to support if Japan declared war on the Netherlands)...  Although the Financials are alot better than they would have been OTL for Belgium just by itself, and as one Country the 3 present more than just the minor speed bump they were OTL to any military adventures.

Japan is actually not that interested in foreign adventures at the moment. Unlike OTL, Japan didn't actually get any war indemnities from China for the Sino-Japanese War so China is much stronger and Japan weaker. Thus most of Japan's attention is focused on China - not the unified Lowlands. Of course if the Unified Lowlands want to make itself a target.... ;)

[Tanthalas]

The Dutch find themselves in an interesting posistion, in Europe they have to be afraid of both France and Germany, Making the UK and Russia logical allies (enemy of my enemy and all that), however in the Pacific the UK is allied to Japan, making them less than ideal allies (seriously who would the UK pick to support if Japan declared war on the Netherlands)...  Although the Financials are alot better than they would have been OTL for Belgium just by itself, and as one Country the 3 present more than just the minor speed bump they were OTL to any military adventures.

Japan is actually not that interested in foreign adventures at the moment. Unlike OTL, Japan didn't actually get any war indemnities from China for the Sino-Japanese War so China is much stronger and Japan weaker. Thus most of Japan's attention is focused on China - not the unified Lowlands. Of course if the Unified Lowlands want to make itself a target.... ;)

Strictly OOC, I can see your point.  However IC, I have to be concernd about Japan, Germany, and France.  Germany and France are largely continental concerns, that leaves Japan as my most likley naval oponent.  Will anything ever come of it, not if I have any say in the matter however I have to have someone to build against and a "recently expansionist" Japan is the most likley for the Job (sorta like Gran Columbia and the CSA were in the past, a Cold war that realy never will heat up).

[Logi]

Objectively speaking, Japan is a much more logical ally to Britain than the Lowlands because the Lowlands actually is in a very bad strategic spot. The Lowlands needs an army to defend it's mainlands which it's industrial capacity is and is liable to drag Britain into an European war in which it stands to gain little - because of the relative land-power projection capabilities of it's neighbors. In addition the Lowlands offers very little in terms of strategic advantage in Asia, it simply covers too small an area and an area surrounded by Britain in the first place. It offers no strategic forward position, no power projection onto Asia itself, and competes in the Malacca Strait. The only value the Lowlands hold is the resource wealth of the Dutch East Indies - but that is not a thing Britain is in short supply of.

By contrast Japan offers almost complete sea-lane control of the East Asia sea region, half of the Pacific Ocean, and has some influence via Korea on the Asian continent, being able to compete in some manner versus China and Russia for a period of time. The spheres of influence do not conflict currently and Japan is unlikely to drag Britain into a war against a major continental power where Japan is not putting up most of the effort.


In Japan's case, the Lowlands should not make it up the list of threats at first glance - the strength of China and the rotation of traditional enemies away (USA no longer uncomfortably close, Russia has much more natural friction with China than Japan due to borders and strength). There is little motivation for taking the Dutch East Indies aggressively since it would infringe on British spheres of influence and there is now little need for such resources - the Philippines has plenty of the resources Japan needs, save Petroleum - but that can be traded for, especially with the stable and non-antagonistic Ottomans and USA. Such infringement on the British sphere of influence would erode British relations with border friction and higher geopolitical threat, it doesn't serve a rational Japan's interests. It would also remove a safeguard against China and Russia as well as destabilize the trading route towards the Ottomans for oil.

Now what I mean to say is it's fair to build a navy to protect against any possible attack from Japan, but it would be bad to thing in the manner of "Japan vs Netherlands cold war" because as the adage goes, assume someone is your enemy and he will become your enemy. With such a tenuous position, I think it would be very important for the Lowlands to avoid creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, even though I think China and Russia are Japan's biggest likely enemies, Japan has made attempts to bridge the gap and maintain friendly relations (at least I hope so). The alliance with Britain is also carefully worded so as to not be an aggressive one, so as to try to avoid intensifying any persecution complex. For example, Japan will likely not engage in another alliance/pact with a power that is a large threat to either China or Russia, because that would simply drive them further up the wall and permanently away from cordial relations - something that would not be useful in any means to Japan unless it planned to attack one of them.

I can do similar analysis of other countries but that's just my geopolitical reasoning - players (including myself) can vary greatly and there is a great deal I am not including in my objective viewpoint, because that doesn't translate well into objectivity.

PS. Most of this will be included in a Japanese new posting as a new political theory developed by somebody in Japan. It will make waves in the Japanese government, like a Mahan.

[Tanthalas]

*Wall of Text Crits you for 1,000,000,000 damage, your entire fleet sinks* (note I actualy read the whole thing).

Realisticly I will end up allying with Germany or France, I simply can't realisticly maintain a large enough army to do much more than slow either of them down (whole limited population thing).

If I ally with France it is possible I ally with Russia as well but it has to make germany a bit jumpy (not that I can actualy do anything to them but the fact that it would give France another avenue of attack)

If I ally with Germany (which is honestly the best bet just going off OTL, since they actualy did invade the low countries a couple times), France is Jumpy but they know if they jump me the realy big agressive neighor is gona stomp to Paris again (remember WW1 hasnt happend yet).

there are advantages and disadvantages either way, but honestly the one thing I cant see me doing is allying with Great Britain, as you pointed out I just dont offer them much of anything, heck an alliance with Japan is more likley.

[Logi]

I agree with the France/Germany option, it makes the most sense. I feel like you shouldn't ally with France AND Russia lest you threaten Britain by doing so - but I don't know Darman's in-depth thought process on this.

[snip]

Hmmm...all the better to take my hat back with.

[Logi]

[world domination plans intensifies]

[Tanthalas]

Wouldnt you rather aquire some pants first?  :P

Hmmm...all the better to take my hat back with.

[Darman]

As of 1900, Britain views pretty much everybody except the Dutch and Japanese (although the Japanese a little, despite the treaty) with some suspicion.  France is the traditional enemy, but she also recently had her ass handed to her by the Prussians, who had, in the previous decade, conquered all of Germany, including Hanover, traditionally closely aligned with both Austria and Britain.  This makes Germany a new opponent to watch closely.  Russia and China are both far too close to India for comfort.  Also, the United States is never to be completely ruled out, as having tried to capture Canada once before she may try so again. 

Its not paranoia if they are really out to get you!