Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 15:40:43 GMT -6
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. to the admiralty: we thank you for the great info. and as our shipyard takes on another designer, our name now changes to: "small s&k shipbuilding". with new logo below: designers: "small s" skwabie, "small k" konstantinua00
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Apr 14, 2017 15:42:27 GMT -6
The reason to armor casemates is that they provide extra armor to the hull if they are armored. I usually only put the minimal 2" on it to save weight but still protect against splinters.
|
|
|
Post by wolfpack on Apr 14, 2017 20:54:31 GMT -6
murphree and co present the raiding cruiser design submission 4x5 in guns 24 knots 1 in armor at the belt ( i don't trust this thing to even float right to be honest but i never design cruisers like this in my own games )
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 14, 2017 21:12:07 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 explosioni 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 Huh. Imagine that. I really had no idea. Aaand now I have to check it out - excuse me for a couple of days ...
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 14, 2017 22:14:08 GMT -6
Clark Family Shipyards thanks the Naval Board for their trust. We know our cruisers will perform well for the fleet. 1900 Raider Design 2100 tons Long Range Reliable Engines Speed: 24 knots Splinter protection covering the entire hull Conning tower and turrets covered by armor sufficient to deter destroyers Main Battery: 6x5 in guns - two guns capable of being directed fore or aft. Three gun broadside. Cost: $426,000 Fast enough to evade most enemy light cruisers. Heavy enough armament to give our captains a chance of getting away by slowing the pursuit of any cruiser fast enough to keep up. We believe this design to be the most cost efficient design submitted yet.
|
|
Wiggy
Full Member
Posts: 163
|
Post by Wiggy on Apr 15, 2017 4:48:57 GMT -6
Wignall & co. wish to submit a raider design, the Intruder. With a speed on par with other designs, she boasts a heavier belt than most raiders while sporting a decent 4*5in broadside, with the future possibility of cross-deck fire. Her twin aft turret can bring two guns to bear where two singles cannot, and it is in a bandstand mount to improve field of fire and keep the guns on the same azimuth as the other turrets on the forecastle, simplifying gunlaying significantly. Intruder.10d (4.98 KB)
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Apr 15, 2017 5:08:25 GMT -6
Have I missed a new competition?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2017 5:33:37 GMT -6
zardoz: 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) nws-online.proboards.com/post/17813/thread
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Apr 15, 2017 6:26:28 GMT -6
The Fritz ***** Shipyard Inc. refers to Winston Churchill ("success is going from failure to failure without loosing enthusiasm") and proudly presents: The C2-Project (Raider) The design has the followoing outstanding features making the ship a competent raider: 1. Range, engine and accommodation fits the requirements of our beloved government 2. The ship has an extraordinary speed of 24 kn which makes it faster than all contemporary ships. 3. With a normal belt of 2 inch and an extended belt of 1 inch it has also a fair amount of protection 4. The armament was optimised to fight as a raider, i. e. sink unarmed merchants; concerning enemey warships its main protection is speed. 5. With the acceptable armor and the high speed, it is also a fine reckon vehicle. 6. The ship costs about 7.5 million; this is very cheap and since it can be used not only temporary like an AMC, it economically outclasses every AMC. Kind regards The general manager
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Apr 15, 2017 10:28:27 GMT -6
And now my design feels kinda crappy. But I will stick by my guns of being the 25kt raider
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 15, 2017 22:52:03 GMT -6
And now my design feels kinda crappy. But I will stick by my guns of being the 25kt raider I liked your design. I didn't think it was even possible to get 25 knots out of 2100 tons of protected cruiser. I had to adjust my thoughts towards something less extreme since you had already taken the fastest possible design choice. It will be interesting to see which design the board picks. Yours may well be the best pure raider...but some of the other designs could conceivably survive a few moments as scout cruisers, should the navy desire them to be so. I'm interested to see what the board picks in terms of turret layout. We have a couple of different theories on display...minimalist, standard single turrets, box turret formations, and the slower firing double turrets...to say nothing of the armored vs unarmored turrets... This will be an entertaining round, and how these ships perform will be eagerly anticipated, I think.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Apr 16, 2017 13:36:47 GMT -6
I liked your design. I didn't think it was even possible to get 25 knots out of 2100 tons of protected cruiser. I had to adjust my thoughts towards something less extreme since you had already taken the fastest possible design choice. It will be interesting to see which design the board picks. Yours may well be the best pure raider...but some of the other designs could conceivably survive a few moments as scout cruisers, should the navy desire them to be so. I'm interested to see what the board picks in terms of turret layout. We have a couple of different theories on display...minimalist, standard single turrets, box turret formations, and the slower firing double turrets...to say nothing of the armored vs unarmored turrets... This will be an entertaining round, and how these ships perform will be eagerly anticipated, I think. I appreciate this, I was actually feeling quite down about this design and was contemplating replacing it. First time I have tried to create something like this at game start, I usually build these light raiders around 1902ish with more tech for a slightly more balanced ship.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 23:27:57 GMT -6
"small s&k shipbuilding" presenting our raider design. We are sorry for the late submission due to some Real Life technical difficulties.. Our entry is a very cheap but effective AMC. It is: 1. Loaded to the max with mines for strategic minelaying. 2. Has 3 center-line torpedo launchers for the coup de grĂ¢ce should a concealed raider interception happen. 3. AMC inherent advantage: only 4 months to build. In the war of attrition that is raiding warfare where interns and scuttles are the norm, this makes them easily replaceable. 4. Only 2100t to save cost. 5. Only 2 guns for "CYA" purposes, to save cost. Even low ammo count, to save cost. 6. Comes with special rebuild option, to save cost further more. - see below. Raider AMC Blank Rebuild Option
Due to mechanics of RTW's game sphere, a blank rebuild also reduces class construction and maintenance cost. This becomes rather relevant to AMCs because they're so quick to build, and they're often built to great numbers. Below are construction costs of our AMC "Lake Owen" classes. The original class costs 2.417 million. The (R 1900) class is a blank rebuild immediately after these ships are commissioned in our mock war scenario. It costs 1.977 million, yes below 2 million a ship, and ~20% less than the original. Just by doing a blank rebuild, our navy can save construction costs even more. Another rebuild option is more torpedo tubes per launcher, when research makes multiple torpedo tube mounts available. This raider class should be able to serve an entire play-thru and would never be "obsolete" as far as AMC techs go, with late game rebuilds having 3x4 torpedoes. Is our AMC effective as a raider? True, if they're intercepted, they're dead. That's a given - Unless it's a concealed interception where some fun torpedo moments can happen, but we admit that's rare. But they're dirt cheap, and they build fast. We believe they are the perfect contender for "raider spam". When deployed to populated enemy seazones, they will wreck havoc on their shipping. We invite our admiralty to take a look at another of our mock-up war scenario where Japan is at war against France. Just like Britain, France has mega colonial holdings in SE Asia. This is what happens when 20+ AMCs are raiding in the region. The end result: French government collapse after 2 years. The French navy suffered NO capital ship losses. They didn't even lose a single CL. small_sk_raider.rar (2.27 KB)
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 18, 2017 2:01:39 GMT -6
And here we face another Competition with lots of good Designs! As usual, Admiralty had a tough time deciding which one to pick, but eventually, requirements of the service and various other bonuses decided upon a *very* unorthodox solution: The Winner of the Second Competition: Raiders is "Fritz ***** Shipyard inc."! Along with it's cheapness, this design also has the best armor belt of all, which will go a long way in ensuring it stays afloat - and running - in a hostile environment. Also, in addition to Raiding - and in case the enemy is Blockaded, and no Raiding is possible - this ship can also, in a pinch, serve as a passable Scout and Destroyer Leader. However, recognizing the fact that there might be additional funds available in wartime - and in case extra Raiding is required, the Board hereby awards a 2nd Place Win (+ 1/2 of the ship's point value) to the "small s&k shipbuilding" for their ingenious AMC Design. Congratulations to both! Stay tuned for further updates and Competitions, and, in the meanwhile: Ladies and Gentlemen, good night. Edit: Before "but you only said one Design!" recriminations start (and rightfully, I might add) I'll put in a word for Defense here: with such a narrow Design requirements, having two competing Designs would lead to *way* too much same-ness, IMHO - so, by forcing you to Design the best Raider possible (in your opinion), I was not only working on giving you a more 'difficult' (and, thus, satisfying) win, but letting you 'vote by Design' (so to speak) on the path this game will take, as well as providing a bit more options to the table.
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Apr 18, 2017 2:30:28 GMT -6
Thank you very much for taking my design!
I have to confess that I also liked the other designs with 2.100 t and was first stunned that it was possible to put 5 incher on such a small cruiser. I have never tried this, maybe because I play mainly Germany and Germany has initially bad 5incher.
The AMC design of skwabie is, that must be confessed, a very good plan. I tried always to make AMC as fast as possible to have a chance to retreat but in most cases this is only an illusion. This design accepts that and minimses the economic loss of loosing an AMC - good idea!
|
|