|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 13, 2017 21:55:11 GMT -6
so does the admiralty review board have anything to say regarding currently submitted designs ? I too share the desire to know who won the bids and the eventual fleet composition... But patience is required... As Inigo Montoya would say, 'I hate waiting...'
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 13, 2017 23:11:12 GMT -6
Ladies and Gentlemen, good evening, and welcome to our presentation! As you all have, no doubt, by now seen, the competition between our six major Shipyards has resulted in lots of very interesting Designs, and our Naval Committee had a hard time choosing one of each group as the winner. However, they did their best facing such adverse circumstances, and finally made the most optimal choices from the ones available. And so, it is with great pleasure that I present to you: A New Navy For A New Century! First off, our new Bainbridge-class Destroyers: in a extremely close-shave race between all 6 competitors, and after grueling elimination process, the Board finally chose a Design by "Wignall & co." Shipyard, as it provides a most balanced all-around mix of attributes: decent speed, good armament, plentiful ammo storage, and, last but not least: decent crew-quarters. Currently, our Navy owns 12 of it's class, and no further ones have been ordered to build as of yet. Next up is our new Protected Cruiser: coming from the Designers of "Ukrayinsʹka-amerykansʹka Newport Iron Bathworks News Union Cramp River NSY (Philadelphia & New York Division)" Shipyard, she represents the compromise in action: although not as fast or powerful like some of the competing designs - the seductive lure of some of which our Board was hard-pressed to ignore - it's all-around dependability finally won the day. Currently, our Navy owns 8 of it's class - and none are being built as yet. Our new Armored Cruiser, on the other hand, was a somewhat easier choice: being the strongest homemade design yet, our Board spent quite some time deliberating between it, and it's French-offered competitor. Ultimately, however, it was deemed that such valuable ships should not be left to the whims of the foreigners - and the "Clark Family Builders" won the Competition in CA class. Currently, our Navy owns 5 of it's class, with 2 more being built in various Shipyards. (Continued below ...)
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 13, 2017 23:44:11 GMT -6
And so, we finally come to our main event: the winner of the Battleship Competition! Once again, after a tough elimination process, our Board arrived at three Designs which suited it's purpose admirably. The decision itself was sheer agony: although the lure of "Fritz ***** Shipyards" Design's Armor belt was considerable, and "Murphree & co." Design's was comparable, the "small s shipyards" Design finally carried the day - albeit by the thinnest of margins. Currently, there are 5 ships of it's class in commision, and 2 more being built. And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, concludes our tonight's presentation. Congratulations to our winners, and all the luck next time to others. And speaking of the next time: all Designers are hereby invited to a conference in the Drawing Room. Thank you for coming, and good night! *Kinda-sorta unofficially-official 'talk' as Admiralty* (you know what I mean) I'm sure most of the Designers have spotted a glaring flaw in our shipbuilding program, by now: We have enough Anti-Raider power, but Defense itself never won a war: we need Offense, as well. Naturally, international politics being what it is, I can merely provide you with a rough guess as to who our major enemy is likely to be - and it should come as no surprise, to at least some of you, that the greatest threat to our security, at the moment, is Britain. They alone have the bases and more than enough ships to blockade our ports - and so, to prevent that, I'm proposing that, to paraphrase Ancient Romans, "Canada delenda est". To this effect, our Battleships and Destroyers will provide the Shield - and our Cruisers will provide the Sword. Well, at least until we have above 3/4 of British budget, at which time we can afford to deploy bigger firepower abroad. So, conclude our business today, the Admiralty wishes to Announce the Second Competition: Raiders. The Admiralty will hereby require one (1) Design of up to 2500 tonnes (inclusive) with at least Long Range, and Reliable engines. Note that both CL and AMC designs are included here - don't rule anything out yet. (The Admiralty doesn't) Designs must be submitted no later than 06:00 hours (GMT) on April 18th. (To account for Easter holidays - and may you have happy ones, too) Game1.zip (315.89 KB)
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Apr 14, 2017 1:14:27 GMT -6
Out of curiosity what handicapped our design? Was it the low freeboard?
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Apr 14, 2017 2:41:24 GMT -6
Memorandum to the General Manager:
1. Intensify our marketing and advertising of fisherboats. 2. Please consider in future designs that "for coastal defense" in the meaning of our beloved government does not mean "solely for coastal defense" but "operational all over the world and also in home waters".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 2:55:55 GMT -6
To the admiralty: "small s shipbuilding" is somewhat surprised and thanks the admiralty for prioritizing the spirit of fair competition, and putting our nation's defense top most. we offer our gratitude and respect, and will do our best to come up with great designs in future competitions. looking at the almanac, it seems that our potential future foes have some heavier battleships stat wise. however we have strong beliefs in our designs. we are also confident that our navy can come out on top in future battles with superior tactics, and operational prowess. To Fellow Shipbuilders (!!..): i can't help but notice both of our navy's cruiser classes have "colonial service" fitted from the start. however: colonial service can be added during a blank refit at no cost to ship tonnage nor refit expense - it is effectively completely the same as a blank refit, with the added bonus of the ship gaining that "c" tag. i realize we all have our own design philosophies and certainly won't comment on those, but i feel that free tonnage is always a good thing no matter how we use it. hopefully this can be a little bit useful (and mayhaps in our own gameplays).. P.S. interestingly, a blank refit also reduces maintenance cost, per pic below. this is our New York class CA. pre-refit 282k/mo; post-refit, 270k/mo.
|
|
|
Post by wolfpack on Apr 14, 2017 6:45:02 GMT -6
murphree and co present ships that intended to go into harms way the chattanooga class raiding cruiser and the amc lake owens class 10x 6in guns 24kn speed and long range with reliable engines but a thinner armor belt than we would like lake owns class amc 14x6in guns 21kn long range
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 14, 2017 9:32:38 GMT -6
boomboomf22: B design? Nah - low freeboard (combined with turreted secondaries) is just fine: it's the smallest secondary battery of them all (in an era where setting the other guy on fire with QF guns is the butter on 12" gun bread) that was the main crunch for me. Beefed up Armor was great - but Defense alone doesn't win the battle, IMHO. Sorry. Really good design, otherwise, though. zardoz: Short range, low freeboard, cramped accommodations - I agree: all good ways to reduce weight & use it more usefully ... like: boosting Armor - which is great - but then: see above. Also, yeah, I was hoping for a Short-ranged B (and DD) winner, but hey - at least this way I can be more aggressive. Hong Kong or bust, eh? skwabie: Sir, if I went and sacked every man who disagreed with me out of a sense of duty to his country, I wouldn't have any men left to kick some British ... pants. To paraphrase a saying: "I believe I can trust a man who isn't afraid of being on the black list." wolfpack: (and all the other Designers, as well) I obviously failed to communicate my intent clearly again: I apologize. The Competition is for one (1) Design only - however, it can be either CL or AMC (I don't think you can build a CA that small) - whichever you think will make 'a bigger bang' in the British Merchant shipping. The intent here is basically: if I want to have some Raiding CL's, I have to start building them now - otherwise, I can continue building the old Protected Cruisers. AMC Design (should it be chosen) will form the basis of our Raiding fleet up until Medium Submarines get invented, at which point raiding will devolve to them. Also, please note that AMC's will be built just like any other combat ships - in the Shipyards - and will (therefore) grant the builder points once it's built - just like others.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Apr 14, 2017 9:56:40 GMT -6
To Fellow Shipbuilders (!!..): i can't help but notice both of our navy's cruiser classes have "colonial service" fitted from the start. however: colonial service can be added during a blank refit at no cost to ship tonnage nor refit expense - it is effectively completely the same as a blank refit, with the added bonus of the ship gaining that "c" tag. i realize we all have our own design philosophies and certainly won't comment on those, but i feel that free tonnage is always a good thing no matter how we use it. hopefully this can be a little bit useful (and mayhaps in our own gameplays).. P.S. interestingly, a blank refit also reduces maintenance cost, per pic below. this is our New York class CA. pre-refit 282k/mo; post-refit, 270k/mo. With our PC UaNIBNUCR placed colonial service in the design because there was 60 free tons and not anything else that could be done to the design that felt worthwhile without increasing displacement. The free tonnage is still there due to colonial service being a free refit on and off. wolfpack your CL is inelligble cause the restirctions are in the 2000-2500 ton range. Just thought I would tell you in the name of fairplay Now for UaNIBNUCR's raider CL design, and I have used these a lot recently, so this should be good So, conclude our business today, the Admiralty wishes to Announce the Second Competition: Raiders. The Admiralty will hereby require one (1) Design of up to 2500 tonnes (inclusive) with at least Long Range, and Reliable engines. Note that both CL and AMC designs are included here - don't rule anything out yet. (The Admiralty doesn't) The reasoning behind this design is that no 2100 ton raider can realistically fight off an enemy counter raider from experience. Thus while it does have to be armed it is lightly armed, with the layout designed for scoring a potentially crippling hit on a pursuing enemy. This ships value and defense lies in its ability to run away, which is why nearly half the ships weight is its engine, propelling it to a frankly ridiculous (for 1900) 25kts. Easily able to run from any enemy counter raider, this ship is also exceedingly cheap to manufacture. We at UaNIBNUCR hope this design will satisfy the admiralty.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Apr 14, 2017 10:16:57 GMT -6
boomboomf22 : B design? Nah - low freeboard (combined with turreted secondaries) is just fine: it's the smallest secondary battery of them all (in an era where setting the other guy on fire with QF guns is the butter on 12" gun bread) that was the main crunch for me. Beefed up Armor was great - but Defense alone doesn't win the battle, IMHO. Sorry. Really good design, otherwise, though. Fair point. I know I tend to over armor my designs as the cost of armament, I will try for more balance in my designs. Here is the ship profile for the Raider.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 10:47:33 GMT -6
until Medium Submarines get invented, at which point raiding will devolve to them how much research priority will go into submarines, low/medium/high? current research in the game save provided seems to be untouched yet.. Q.2 where will the raiders be deployed, will they only be in seazones with base support - 3 US home waters plus southeast asia, or will they be spread over the enemy's colonial holdings and enemy home waters?
|
|
|
Post by konstantinua00 on Apr 14, 2017 12:30:24 GMT -6
And extremal ship designer joins the "small s shipbuilding" shipyard, the reasons being: more than generous offer, being 1-member shipyard and, most of all, by being the only job offered (<_>)
My design will be in the nearest hours, just need to understand what the situation in the save is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 13:00:49 GMT -6
And extremal ship designer joins the "small s shipbuilding" shipyard, the reasons being: more than generous offer, being 1-member shipyard and, most of all, by being the only job offered (<_>) My design will be in the nearest hours, just need to understand what the situation in the save is. and welcome onboard, konstantinua00! the raider design is now yours to make! there is still about 4 days so no hurries. i will work out our new logo pretty soon.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 14, 2017 13:09:48 GMT -6
boomboomf22: Note that I don't count the massive armor as a point against - armor is good - but only up to a certain point. Same with weaponry: JagdFlanker's B Design was a veritable cornucopia of secondary guns that made me drool - until I saw the armor over secondaries ... OTOH, I wonder if I should actually go for freakish Designs - you know - just for the entertainment value ... (OTOOH, I really like to win, too) ... hmmm ... decisions, decisions ... skwabie: Medium. And thank you for reminding me about research - I was pressed to release the new Competition, I haven't had the time (yet) to set up much else. Q2: (I'll assume you mean during the war) Raiders will be deployed in enemy waters - preferably ones with lots of bases, few defenders & near to friendly waters.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Apr 14, 2017 14:01:52 GMT -6
boomboomf22 : Note that I don't count the massive armor as a point against - armor is good - but only up to a certain point. Same with weaponry: JagdFlanker's B Design was a veritable cornucopia of secondary guns that made me drool - until I saw the armor over secondaries ... OTOH, I wonder if I should actually go for freakish Designs - you know - just for the entertainment value ... (OTOOH, I really like to win, too) ... hmmm ... decisions, decisions ... for the record i only armour turrets, never casemate. i'v been doing that for the near 2 years i'v been playing and it's never been an issue - i never get ammo explosions or any other catastrophic explosion i would assume it'd cause a lot of crew casualties if it was real-life but since crew are not modeled in RtW it's pretty much a non-issue in the game
|
|