|
Post by konstantinua00 on Apr 12, 2017 6:48:31 GMT -6
As someone who read a lot of AARs one of the most irritating things is to have to click on something to go view the images relevant to it, hence why inserting images is important, either thru Photobucket or as attachments. In case you didn't notice, this is not an AAR with 1 post with 1-5 pictures per 1-3 days It is a forum game, with 10+ players that will be posting 3-5 pictures each at the same time
|
|
|
Post by davedave on Apr 12, 2017 7:23:10 GMT -6
Sorry about the delay in response, I was busy. Yes I would love to join your shipyard and appreciate your willingness to mod the name, we can have the greatest long short title UaNIBNUCR (hehe). As for the logo I uploaded it to photobucket, I'll try adding it as an attachment. You should be able to right click and save it as a png file then open and mod. What do you think of my designs for the competition btw, any mods you think might be necessary? Nice job with the logo mod, mate! That's literally all I was gonna do with it. However... [\OoC] I do have a quibble or two with our preliminaries, if I may. Firstly, I am not convinced of the utility of such a monstrous white elephant as our ocean-going cruiser. Without wishing to inflame tensions in our organisation at so early a juncture, I simply do not believe the offered craft's capabilities to be worth the cost or expenditure of materiel. Furthermore, I am a tad worried that my fellow designer might have visited one of the many fine apothecaries & drug stores open to the public & indulged himself rather too much with one of the refreshing beverages available therein, for I see no pressing need for a fleet element that attempts to straddle so many roles, whilst specialising in none: in aiming for (as you say) a "second class battleship", it seems you have ended up with a vessel that is both a second-class battleship & a second-class cruiser! In short, it's a boondoggle sir, I say a boondoggle! (\Foghorn Leghorn impression). Now, whilst I can *kinda* see the idea behind it (an idea which appears to amount, to my untrained eyes, to "Slaughter anything in its path") I don't believe we as a nation require such a monstrosity, as yet; it also seems—to my untutored eyes—to be built for some hypothetical future that may never arrive, rather than corresponding to our needs as they are right now. I also feel it's burdened with too many unproved technologies: those secondary turrets look nice, I'll give you that, but surely with such a massive detriment to their rate of fire, it'd be best to seek more (ahem) conventional technical solutions first, rather than entrusting the overseas security of our great nation to an unproven, radical (& incredibly expensive) design? With that in mind, I would like to present, for your consideration, the UaNIBNUCR "Force Projector". It's cheap(er), it's cheerful (kinda) & meets all the requirements of the issued directive whilst saving a large chunk of change for use in other projects. Furthermore, whilst (in the area of the main armament arrangement) it suffers from the same technical hitch as your offered design & I certainly admit that it's nowhere near as good at smashing to pieces anything in its path, it's rather more affordable, infinitely more practical *at its designated role* (its long range will enable it to patrol our far-flung colonies, keeping our shipping lanes safe from predation) & generally an all-round saner proposition. In much the same manner, I would also like to propose a *slight amendment* to your Protected Cruiser design: A ship 3/4 the size, for 2/3 the cost. It's nippy, balanced & adequate for its role. Again, I would caution against flinging such large sums of money at vessels that—whilst they might encourage tumescence in the trouser-regions of the yellow press & compilers of naval annuals—would be grossly over-egging the pudding for the tactical & strategic roles for which they are designed, & vulnerable to sea-changes (arf-arf) in technological development... I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these matters. PS: I have no problems with your proposed destroyer or battleship designs, with the single proviso in the latter case that I think the secondaries should go in casemates, for now.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 12, 2017 13:43:50 GMT -6
zardoz : Your zeal for the welfare of our glorious nation does you credit, Sir. However, in your haste, I fear you must have - inadvertently, I'm sure - overlooked a single piece of information: just as your Shipyard (major as it is) competes for the grand-prize, there are also other (smaller) Shipyards competing for the other (smaller, but not less important) prizes. So, I'm sure you'll understand if we take your generous offer under advisement. skwabie : I'm sorry, but - I really think I shouldn't. If I provide ALL the relevant information, then everybody will provide ALL the same Designs - which kinda defeats the purpose of this whole charade. So, all I'm gonna say is: ALL (major) ship types will be included in Competitions (assuming this lasts that long) sooner or later. All I can give you are specifications required (and refer you to the overall strategic situation) as clues to what I'm aiming for. I can give you one specific answer, though: I play on Admiral mode - only lead Division under control. Everything else is situational. Also, all ships will be scrapped after about 15 to 20 years' service - to provide room for new construction, and I'll be relying on MS's (+DD's, if in real trouble) for ASW duties. davedave : & boomboomf22 : Gentlemen Designers, It is my solemn duty to inform you, in the interest of clarity, and as a purely hypothetical scenario, that the Admiralty will NOT accept Designs covered in any amount of blood splatter whatsoever. Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 15:47:43 GMT -6
skwabie : I'm sorry, but - I really think I shouldn't. If I provide ALL the relevant information, then everybody will provide ALL the same Designs - which kinda defeats the purpose of this whole charade. So, all I'm gonna say is: ALL (major) ship types will be included in Competitions (assuming this lasts that long) sooner or later. All I can give you are specifications required (and refer you to the overall strategic situation) as clues to what I'm aiming for.
I can give you one specific answer, though: I play on Admiral mode - only lead Division under control. Everything else is situational. Also, all ships will be scrapped after about 15 to 20 years' service - to provide room for new construction, and I'll be relying on MS's (+DD's, if in real trouble) for ASW duties. admiral mode and MS for CP is great info. like for myself i tend to mass build MS but also use DD at the same time. i must say that the "specs" given in the 1st post are too vague and as designers we are simply making ships that we deem acceptable ourselves suited for generic situations, but afterall it is YOU who will be playing the game. just like an "admiralty" is giving out design requirements the guidelines need to be more detailed. for example: "the freedom of the seas is threatened by:"... who will you choose? Japan? Britain? someone else? who is more likely to be the future opponent chose by "our navy", what is the more likely enemy that we are designing our ships against? if it is japan it'll likely be sporadic small scale coastal raids/cruiser battles in SE asia and NA west coast. if it's britain it'll probably be larger scale battles at home the caribbean and NA east coast. the former will need really strong cruisers; the latter could do with some short/cramped DDs and even Bs. the former one can relax protection a bit and really go for firepower/speed and the latter well better button 'em down. basically we at "small s shipbuilding" wish to know the full intent of our admiralty so as not to design ships not having the complete picture. we don't disagree with the format: they can be given in the design specs which is very fine. but the specs need to contain more info. in a previous post you mentioned about a great "plan" moving short ranged DDs in-between home areas. it is a "unofficial" post. but this is crucial info about your, or rather the admiralty's, intent. are we supposed to "read between the lines" of srndacful's personal casual post to guestimate the game host's preference? this i simply cannot agree to. if you're giving out this kinda info, might as well make it official.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 12, 2017 17:44:57 GMT -6
Already the rival builders are getting whiny...
You just need to be clairvoyant, like us.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Apr 12, 2017 18:20:07 GMT -6
submitting CA on behalf of WaC as approved by Lord Wiggy the design designation is CA-1 WaC but the class name will be the Walla Walla Washington class CA trades aft gun for heavy secondary armament - she chases what she can kill and outruns what she can't so no need for aft gun
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Apr 12, 2017 19:48:02 GMT -6
davedave my good sir I appreciate your concerns in the field of ship design, frankly with the Armored cruiser I was really just swept away by the realization I could put 12" guns on one if it went 22kts. I do however have a few minor quibbles with the revised AC and PC. First I feel that while long range is welcome, and the drop to 8" guns sensible the armor is too thin and narrow belt not worth it. These early ACs are going to be the backbone of the early cruiser battles and there is nothing outstanding about ours other than cheapness. I refer you to the success (or lack there of) of our Italian contemporaries similar weight and cost saving designs. I will post my own bulked up slightly modification of our design for your perusal. On the subject of the PC there is only one quibble, which is the 5" guns. If this were strictly a scout cruiser I would approve, but on a multi-role PC 6" guns are a must due to their increased range and punch over 5" guns. The rate of fire simply does not make up for the reduced power of the shell. I placed 5" secondaries primarily as a weight saving measure on the B and CA designs. Here is my PC revision and the AC, with yours I am just worried that it can penetrate its own belt, and there will be a lot of 10" cruisers that can pen it as well. Also do you think going to lowboard on the B is worth it? Here is my experimental design. The reasoning behind the single turrets is they don't get knocked out the same way as casemates (a bunch taken out by one hit), and with 2" they won't really protect the hull and at that armor they become shielded and lose the ROF penalty
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 22:56:33 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 23:02:08 GMT -6
Already the rival builders are getting whiny... You just need to be clairvoyant, like us. i'll not engage in pointless fights with others, do suggest u do the same.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 12, 2017 23:09:05 GMT -6
skwabie : Huh. And here I thought I provided enough clues with "Coastal Defense" and "no more than 13000 tonnes". I guess I should've stuck with the original "no more than 12000 tonnes" to hammer the point home - but then they might've been too weak, which is why I changed it in the first place. Oh well. I planned from the start to provide a (little bit) more in-depth overview at the end of the 1st Competition, and before the 2nd - but, again, not too much, so as not to get the same-y ships - which would, again, defeat the entire purpose of this game. (I.e. then I might as well start rolling dice to see which design wins - and where's the fun in that?) (OTOH, the number of Shipyards seems oddly compatible with the number of sides on a dice, don't you think?) Edit: after seeing your recent posts, I agree I'll have to be a bit less subtle about my (overall) requirements in the future - consider your point taken. Edit2: Oh, and Designers don't have to worry too much about dropping behind in points due to not being taken in a single Competition: if this game goes anything like my usual ones, there will be over a dozen Competitions with over three dozen required Designs total.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 12, 2017 23:26:39 GMT -6
Already the rival builders are getting whiny... You just need to be clairvoyant, like us. i'll not engage in pointless fights with others, do suggest u do the same. Sorry. Thought that tongue in cheek banter was ok, seeing as this is a game. Guess not.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 12, 2017 23:31:07 GMT -6
skwabie : Huh. And here I thought I provided enough clues with "Coastal Defense" and "no more than 13000 tonnes". I guess I should've stuck with the original "no more than 12000 tonnes" to hammer the point home - but then they might've been too weak, which is why I changed it in the first place. Oh well. I planned from the start to provide a (little bit) more in-depth overview at the end of the 1st Competition, and before the 2nd - but, again, not too much, so as not to get the same-y ships - which would, again, defeat the entire purpose of this game. (I.e. then I might as well start rolling dice to see which design wins - and where's the fun in that?) (OTOH, the number of Shipyards seems oddly compatible with the number of sides on a dice, don't you think?) Edit: after seeing your recent posts, I agree I'll have to be a bit less subtle about my (overall) requirements in the future - consider your point taken. Edit2: Oh, and Designers don't have to worry too much about dropping behind in points due to not being taken in a single Competition: if this game goes anything like my usual ones, there will be over a dozen Competitions with over three dozen required Designs total. No worries. It's all part of the bidding process. If you don't like the designs coming in from us...revise your specs and let us see if we can meet the new ones. We, of course, will want as detailed of specs as possible...but the realities of the environment (where we could conceivably end up at war with anyone) will dictate a bit of flexibility in your goal setting. With that said, I think I caught on with the coastal battleship and destroyer wording...but if we have misunderstood the cruiser specs...just let us know. The more constraints you put on us, the more 'weird' the designs will be to accommodate the specs while still remaining effective point winners. IMO, a cost spec ought to be important. That ought to cut down on the tendency to build the biggest, baddest, most expensive ship possible (which is the direction the point scoring system directs the designers toward).
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 12, 2017 23:35:04 GMT -6
I hadn't thought of subcontracting work to other nations... ...is that allowed? If so, pretty ingenious!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 12, 2017 23:56:13 GMT -6
theexecuter: Man, so many (obviously) good points here, I don't know where to start. Points of the first post well taken & in line with my 'gameplan' to date. Also remember the Battle Bonus Points: DD's might not be the highest scoring in the game design, but if one manages to torpedo a BB ... or even B ... Sub-contracting to other nations is possible, but remember that no points will be given to 'home' Shipyards for actual shipbuilding - as well as possible hostile takeovers of ships due to the tension & thus no Battle Bonus due to no ships afloat. You've been warned.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Apr 13, 2017 4:19:22 GMT -6
and finally the final submission for WaC as per Lord Wiggy the B-1 WaC design shall henceforth be known as the Topeka Class B
Again, trades aft mount for speed and heavier secondary armament
|
|