|
Post by Airy W on Aug 12, 2017 7:18:53 GMT -6
Thank you. It seems to me that phrasing doesn't imply a penalty to technology, it seems to say a completely different age penalty. Not a problem. I'm not sure what you mean with the last though? I'm saying that I think the ships do get the full benefits of technology. They just get a penalty regardless of technology.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 12, 2017 10:13:36 GMT -6
i don't know anything about the subject of damage control in ships, but i would have thought that much if not most of it is how the ship is constructed to decrease the chance of a catastrophic failure happening when damage is taken
i wouldn't think that a refit could really affect how the ship was already built outside of putting bandaids on later discovered problems and weakness
|
|
|
Post by edgeworthy on Aug 12, 2017 18:45:55 GMT -6
Fred Jane commented in 1912 that major re-builds were seldom worth the time and effort.
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 13, 2017 13:01:45 GMT -6
I'd agree - major rebuilds are rarely worth the money unless new construction is prohibited and a rebuild is all you can do.
That said, in my last game I had a class of DD I particularly liked (1500-ton, 32-knot, 8x4" and 8 torpedo tubes). They came out of the yard a knot slow (at 32) and then I got a better 4" gun, so I did a machinery and gun replacement on all 24 of them. Cost a lot, but it was quicker than building new.
Sometimes I will rebuild a coal-fired CA or BB with oil-firing, get a bit more speed out of it and extend its life, but usually 20 years is the service life I expect and I scrap after that.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 13, 2017 13:25:16 GMT -6
I'll do major rebuilds (engines and guns) for dreadnoughts and battlecruisers because a refit takes 10 months at most, which is much shorter than the construction time for a new dreadnought. Plus I almost never scrap dreadnoughts, so I'll refit them as much as I need to keep them competitive (I don't build the dreadful 3 centerline turret dreadnoughts. I wait until 4 turrets and some form of torpedo protection come along). I'll also refit old destroyers to make them better ASW vessels (better guns and engines), but that's not too expensive. Anything else is too expensive when you could just build a new one.
I'll do fire control refits for any ship, as those are cheap
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Aug 13, 2017 13:35:09 GMT -6
I'll do major rebuilds (engines and guns) for dreadnoughts and battlecruisers because a refit takes 10 months at most, which is much shorter than the construction time for a new dreadnought. Plus I almost never scrap dreadnoughts, so I'll refit them as much as I need to keep them competitive (I don't build the dreadful 3 centerline turret dreadnoughts. I wait until 4 turrets and some form of torpedo protection come along). I'll also refit old destroyers to make them better ASW vessels (better guns and engines), but that's not too expensive. Anything else is too expensive when you could just build a new one. I'll do fire control refits for any ship, as those are cheap The problem with major refits on dreadnoughts is that you can't refit armor for anything but turrets. By the time a ship is old enough for a significant refit to be worthwhile, its armor scheme is obsolete.
|
|
|
Post by fwskungen on Aug 17, 2017 16:12:22 GMT -6
sometimes specially when playing as Germany i tend to do refit of guns due to them having some gun size issues this is like from a 12 gun 13" guns to 8 15-16" guns the "rule" i have made myself is that the value need to be 3 so 1 in gun increase is +1 and a quality is +1 so you either need 13" to 16" or to 15" guns +1 this works to some extent. For other countries this is not as valuable
|
|
|
Post by achanos on Aug 21, 2017 10:40:24 GMT -6
In my games, it all depends on what nation I am, and what time I have.
Refits are faster than new construction in most cases, so that goes to the time argument. For example, in my recent Austria-Hungary game, I simply didn't have the time to build a lot of new construction, I HAD to rebuild. I had a war with Italy in 1904, which I drubbed them. War ended in 1906 with me picking up Sardinia and Albania, and I had major threats from both Russia and France. I ran my B's and CA's through refit two at a time to take advantage of gun improvements and accuracy. War with France kicked off in 1907. Germany and I thrashed France by 1910, gaining me concessions in the Med, Corsica and Tunisia. I refused to take anything outside of the Med, even though I could.
So, by 1910, war had left me short of tonnage from losses, particularly in destroyers, and a large number of ships that were obsolete, or pushing it. I refitted all my B and CA, and some of the CL. If the CL couldn't be realistically upgraded for speed, I dont bother. If the crew skill is Elite, I keep them, otherwise I scrap them or send them to reserve/mothballs. Same with DD's, obsolete DD's go to reserve/mothballs and get dumped into ASW/Costal patrol.
For smaller nations, rebuilds are often one of the only economical ways to keep up with tonnage and limited finances. Austria simply doesn't have the cash to lay down six BB's at the same time. What it CAN do, is build ships with an eye for upgrades.
For example; B's can get a life extension in the Austrian Navy (and Italy/Russia) by giving them the heaviest belt and deck armor you can in 1900 (assuming you build your own). Why? Because thats the one thing you cant change in a rebuild! I also make them short ranged, freeing up a ton of space for armor/guns/speed. Short ranged B for smaller nations makes a lot of sense. If you dont have colonial territory, why bother with the range, you can get it later!
As an example, from my Russia game; B Tsarevich 16,000 ton (built in UK) 20 knots Short range, normal engine, normal freeboard Belt: 13.5 in Belt ext: 4 in Deck: 2 in Deck ext: 1 in Conning: 13.5 in Turrets: 7 in Turret top:1 in Seconds: 6 in
Armament: Two dual 12 inch turrets Fore and Aft, 175 rounds per gun, Central rangefinder Twelve 5 inch secondaries in casement Two torpedo tubes, port and starboard (submerged)
This ship is a GREAT platform for rebuilds. Its fast for a starting B, the belt and deck armor are quite heavy for the start of the game, and viable for quite some time as guns improve. The turrets are proof against its own guns, and the secondaries are good against anything except 12 and 14 inch guns inside of 5,000 yards.
As technology improves, I can upgrade this ship and still have it as a viable combatant for quite some time. A machinery upgrade is very expensive, but I can change the range to medium if needed, or I can pile on larger guns without reducing the 20 knot starting speed. Also, the armor of the turrets and secondaries can be improved as time goes on and space frees up, meaning that offensively these ships can still pack a reasonable punch.
More importantly, these ships can be upgraded and turned around faster than new construction. These ships are easily good for ten years, but past that, are going to degrade in usefulness quickly. That decade of service IS important, because the more of these I can keep afloat, the more time I have to build NEW battleships AND avoid having my capital tonnage drop. That tonnage is critical as a small nation if you want to avoid being blockaded in a war. Learned that lesson that hard way!
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 21, 2017 11:42:46 GMT -6
I disagree. Firstly, rebuilding old ships doesn't increase the tonnage which the fleet has in service, and so will not allow you to "keep up with tonnage" while the other powers are expanding their fleets; you may be treading water, but everyone else is swimming onwards. Secondly, an extensive rebuild will normally cost about half as much as a new ship; if you can afford to perform such a rebuild on two older ships, you can usually afford to build one new ship, and adding one new ship to the fleet is normally a much greater increase in the fleet's strength than giving two older ships an extensive reconstruction, especially if you treat the new ship as an addition to the fleet rather than as a replacement for an existing vessel. Old, slow ships which are given only minimal refits to keep their fire control systems up to date may not be as relevant as the same ships given far more extensive - and expensive - reconstructions to modernize their armament and engines, but they are not usually so irrelevant as to be disregarded entirely, and by the time that they are that irrelevant it is unlikely that even the most extensive reconstruction you could give them would make them more worthwhile than new ships.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Aug 21, 2017 12:15:12 GMT -6
... This ship is a GREAT platform for rebuilds. Its fast for a starting B, the belt and deck armor are quite heavy for the start of the game, and viable for quite some time as guns improve. The turrets are proof against its own guns, and the secondaries are good against anything except 12 and 14 inch guns inside of 5,000 yards. ... As technology improves, I can upgrade this ship and still have it as a viable combatant for quite some time. A machinery upgrade is very expensive, but I can change the range to medium if needed, or I can pile on larger guns without reducing the 20 knot starting speed. Also, the armor of the turrets and secondaries can be improved as time goes on and space frees up, meaning that offensively these ships can still pack a reasonable punch. Achanos, While I don't normally rebuild pre-dreads beyond updating fire control and minor weapons, I have to say that your ideas for how to prepare a ship for a future major rebuild while keeping it currently viable are quite good.
|
|
|
Post by achanos on Aug 21, 2017 13:33:38 GMT -6
I disagree. Firstly, rebuilding old ships doesn't increase the tonnage which the fleet has in service, and so will not allow you to "keep up with tonnage" while the other powers are expanding their fleets; you may be treading water, but everyone else is swimming onwards. Secondly, an extensive rebuild will normally cost about half as much as a new ship; if you can afford to perform such a rebuild on two older ships, you can usually afford to build one new ship, and adding one new ship to the fleet is normally a much greater increase in the fleet's strength than giving two older ships an extensive reconstruction, especially if you treat the new ship as an addition to the fleet rather than as a replacement for an existing vessel. Old, slow ships which are given only minimal refits to keep their fire control systems up to date may not be as relevant as the same ships given far more extensive - and expensive - reconstructions to modernize their armament and engines, but they are not usually so irrelevant as to be disregarded entirely, and by the time that they are that irrelevant it is unlikely that even the most extensive reconstruction you could give them would make them more worthwhile than new ships. Fine to disagree. I actually think your comment sort of proved my point to an extent. You are absolutely correct that in the scheme of things that if I can afford two refits, I could build one new. I do not disagree at all. My point was that given the challenge of keeping ships in viable combatants in service, while adding to the fleet, smaller nations have a problem. If you scrap your pre-BB battleships, and things take a turn for the worse, you will likely suffer in the next war. Often times, badly, especially if blockaded. Where the rebuild option is quite useful is, using the example you mentioned, only rebuilding one battleship, and using the remaining cash to add to the fleet by building a new run of destroyers when that technology upgrades. Or, as for example, adding a new BB while upgrading an older ship. Net result is one brand new ship, and a current ship stays combat viable for a few years more. Or, as a better example, as the Battleship Tsarevitch I gave as an example becomes obsolete, and I have four of them. I can scrap them, gaining a fraction of their cost back, but costing me four battleships afloat and the tonnage. If I have the time and the money AND the additional tonnage, thats not such a big deal. (Hello US and UK). As Russia, those four battleships represent a major portion of my capital ships. Before 1910, thats probably half or more of my battleships afloat. If I rebuild two of them and lay down a new ship, I have a net of three useful battleships as opposed to two. And if the rebuilds are cheaper, I have the rebuilds back in service faster than a new build, even accelerated. Is rebuilding cost efficient in the long run. No. Absolutely not. Can it buy time to get ships built and out of the slipways before hostilities kick off with a new rival. Yes, very often it can. This isnt a permanent solution to the problem of floating enough tonnage, but what it does allow is for a smaller nation to wring time and utility out of a platform while more advanced ships come along. At some point those starting battleships WILL be a liability in combat. When multiple turrets and bigger guns become common, those upgraded B are not worth pouring money into, and the WILL cost you prestige and warscore when you lose them.
|
|
|
Post by achanos on Aug 21, 2017 13:47:59 GMT -6
... This ship is a GREAT platform for rebuilds. Its fast for a starting B, the belt and deck armor are quite heavy for the start of the game, and viable for quite some time as guns improve. The turrets are proof against its own guns, and the secondaries are good against anything except 12 and 14 inch guns inside of 5,000 yards. ... As technology improves, I can upgrade this ship and still have it as a viable combatant for quite some time. A machinery upgrade is very expensive, but I can change the range to medium if needed, or I can pile on larger guns without reducing the 20 knot starting speed. Also, the armor of the turrets and secondaries can be improved as time goes on and space frees up, meaning that offensively these ships can still pack a reasonable punch. Achanos, While I don't normally rebuild pre-dreads beyond updating fire control and minor weapons, I have to say that your ideas for how to prepare a ship for a future major rebuild while keeping it currently viable are quite good. Thank you. I tried to steal a page from current military SLEP (Service Life Extension Program) practices. If the platform is viable, you can add more capability later, if you cant, scrap it. An example would be the Oliver Hazzard Perry frigates for the USN, their service life was almost 40 years. Doesnt really work that way in RtW, but you can squeeze a bit more useful life out of the bigger boats with a bit of planning.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Aug 21, 2017 15:11:59 GMT -6
My view is that as a small nation you need to avoid over investing in any class. As such I am never refitting for speed. Four battleships of the same type is an unusually large class for me. If your BBs and CAs are built in pairs you should be able to phase out the old stuff without fear. Then you only refit when it is good bang for buck. Fire control obviously but a slow ship can sometimes add a knot or two at a reasonable price. And no, it does not always cost half a new ship to address speed to a slow ship. Try building ship that aren't speed fiends from the get go.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Aug 21, 2017 19:30:07 GMT -6
My view is that as a small nation you need to avoid over investing in any class. As such I am never refitting for speed. Four battleships of the same type is an unusually large class for me. If your BBs and CAs are built in pairs you should be able to phase out the old stuff without fear. Then you only refit when it is good bang for buck. Fire control obviously but a slow ship can sometimes add a knot or two at a reasonable price. And no, it does not always cost half a new ship to address speed to a slow ship. Try building ship that aren't speed fiends from the get go. I have to heartily agree with this. I feel no compulsion to have a 25 knot battle line. The 21 knot low-freeboard mark is golden for me, and I can only chalk up 1 battle lost in 30+ games due to poor gunnery from high seas. 21 knots is just fine for my ships, even 20. The number say so. :]
|
|