|
Post by Airy W on Aug 30, 2017 21:01:48 GMT -6
I invested a lot in my fleet, building better tin cans, and upgrading whenever possible and building submarines when available. Game mechanics =/= reality. You need battleships to provide the bulk tonnage in order to prevent blockade in the game.[/quote] I thought that destroyers were much better in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 30, 2017 21:38:35 GMT -6
I invested a lot in my fleet, building better tin cans, and upgrading whenever possible and building submarines when available. Game mechanics =/= reality. You need battleships to provide the bulk tonnage in order to prevent blockade in the game. I thought destroyers and submarines were real good for that purpose also.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 30, 2017 21:39:36 GMT -6
OK. An update on my war with England and Italy. Well, I lost one of my Armored cruisers that the AI built, it blew up. However, on my last mission I sank two tin cans of the Italians and seven transports. They immediately asked for an armistice, no harm, no foul.
Ha Ha, I now have an alliance with the French. I have the Italians in a vise.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 31, 2017 8:27:34 GMT -6
inal Report on my game as the Austro-Hungarians Well, no more wars in the game, but my prestige was only 25. I don't think much about that, protecting my country and personnel is more important. All ships were rebuilt for oil and improved gun directors. The disarmament conference sort of reduced the need for battleships. I built a substantial fleet of medium submarines for a possible guerre de course, which was never needed. I retired to a villa on the Dalmatian Coast where I now grow grapes and produce large quantities of good wines. I sail over to Bari and meet with my friends in Italy. Life is good. Oh by the way, Hawaii gained independence by revolting. That's revolting... As an adjunct to this final report - Final Fleet Composition
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Aug 31, 2017 10:35:32 GMT -6
Some of those ships seem a bit outdated for 1925.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 31, 2017 10:44:03 GMT -6
Some of those ships seem a bit outdated for 1925. Yup, they are. I have focused on submarines and rebuilding. I did build two new heavy cruisers and destroyers along with updated medium submarines however, the restrictions by the disarmament treaty sort of curtailed dreadnoughts. However, it was to my advantage since it also curtained everyone else. The geostrategic position of A-H is such that this fleet is more than adequate. I tend to stay away from fleet battles. They are costly and waste assets. I don't go looking for wars, prestige is meaningless to me. My victory is when I have protected my country and men in my service, and this means minimizing wars. Wars are costly in both human lives and finances. I don't waste them.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Aug 31, 2017 10:50:42 GMT -6
I just think that replacing them would probably offer more fleet-in-being for your buck. The cost of keeping old battleships is non-trivial.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 31, 2017 11:05:51 GMT -6
I just think that replacing them would probably offer more fleet-in-being for your buck. The cost of keeping old battleships is non-trivial. I do understand that point but expenses being what they are, at times one has to balance a new ship versus upgrading an old one, especially in peaceful times. I wanted to replace all my armored cruisers and actually did so, but not with battleships. Many of those armored cruisers are new. I want to remind you that we fought the Japanese Navy to a standstill and essentially put it on the defensive with an older, pre-war fleet. We then built a new fleet during the war and destroyed the Japanese fleet. In this game, wars generally do not last long and since I don't normally unless forced, fight fleet engagements, my ships actually are not that worn out. I put many of my ships into mothballs or reserve to preserve them and reduce costs. However I am open to ideas and if I play Italy today, I might go ahead and build all new ships. I am thinking that around 1913 would be a good year to begin the process. Please continue to provide me with ideas and suggestions, this is why I put this thread up here.... over and above my desire to have fun.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Aug 31, 2017 11:09:13 GMT -6
I just think that replacing them would probably offer more fleet-in-being for your buck. The cost of keeping old battleships is non-trivial. This point was proven to me in my Admiralty Debates, & yet I *still* rebuild and retain almost all my old ships. Its the tonnage = time equation, It just feels an anathema to me to scrap ships unless they are *clearly* useless, when the game is such a race against time to put tonnage in the water. And, once every twenty games, when i decide to blog it and share with the world, ... it blows up in my face. (lol)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 31, 2017 14:16:38 GMT -6
I wanted to this opportunity to explain in better terms, how I play the game. A little history is important. No lectures.
Contrary to what most historians have written, Sir Jackie Fisher was originally appointed by a conservative government who had pledged to place social benefits over armament. This would be new to the British government. He was brought in to do two things: improve fighting efficiency of the navy and reduce costs with a more effective disposition of the fleet. This is the opinion of Arthur Marder, Jon Sumida, Andrew Lambert and Fisher's biographer, Ruddock Mackay. As the Marder wrote: "Economy and efficiency were the motives underlying Fisher's great reforms." We tend to lose sight of this fact, in the face of the history of the Naval Arms race and subsequent World War. War readiness was an essential factor for Fisher.It's hard to imagine but Fisher had a strategic concept based on small torpedo craft like destroyers and submarines. These would replace the all-big gun battleship for the defense of England and the overseas bases. The battle cruisers would protect the oceanic trade. Large armored battleships had no place in his plan. He never succeeded due to successive committers that he had setup, recommending battleships. However, in point of fact, Fisher was ahead of time in his strategic thought but technology had not caught up with his ideas. The airplane, improved torpedoes and submarines would later prove his ideas correct.
What I have just presented, is exactly how I plan and develop my fleet. It is my fleet policy. My policy is based on Fisher's theory of strategy, not the reality of history. Fisher always placed an emphasis on speed rather than heavy armor. The legacy of Jutland seems to prove that to be a bad idea but that is not true, poor ammunition handling has been proven to be the weak point in the battle cruisers designs. Testing in tanks in England have shown that the Queen Mary was just as capable of handling the damage that the Seydlitz received and survive. The problem was the poor handling that caused the fire in the turret to spread down the handling tube to the ammunition rooms. This caused the explosions. Lion was as badly damaged as Queen Mary, but survived due to the handling procedures being followed and a brave soldier who flood the compartment.
I don't build many battleships but I do build battlecruisers when possible. I upgrade my heavy and light cruisers along with my armored cruisers to gain speed and survivability along with improved gunnery. I upgrade my destroyers emphasizing speed and torpedoes. I build as many coastal and medium submarines as I can afford. I scrap older coastal's as I build more medium range submarines. Eventually, time permitting, I scrap all of the older subs and just focus on minelaying and medium range.
Now, maybe my fleet policy is not compatible with the game, but so far it has worked. As I have stated, prestige is not important to me. As I have stated, fleet battles are not that important to me.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Aug 31, 2017 14:42:35 GMT -6
on the other hand, most objectives can be accomplished by attacking where the enemy must defend and defending what the enemy must attack.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Aug 31, 2017 15:01:14 GMT -6
The failure of Fisher is that while he succeeded in laying the foundation for the equipment to be built that would move the royal navy into the future...he was unable to cast that vision to the royal navy as an organization so that his equipment would be used as designed.
Instead, the royal navy continued the practices and practical use of ships using the battle line theories of the day...because the doctrinal change necessary to properly use the ships Fisher designed and provided never happened.
IMO, this isn't Fishers fault...and is more a commentary on the Royal Navy method of developing and training officers and doctrine. Any group that was committed to modernizing doctrine was separate from Fishers group designing ships...and also not optimized to disseminating and enforcing new doctrinal thought.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 31, 2017 15:18:41 GMT -6
The failure of Fisher is that while he succeeded in laying the foundation for the equipment to be built that would move the royal navy into the future...he was unable to cast that vision to the royal navy as an organization so that his equipment would be used as designed. Instead, the royal navy continued the practices and practical use of ships using the battle line theories of the day...because the doctrinal change necessary to properly use the ships Fisher designed and provided never happened. IMO, this isn't Fishers fault...and is more a commentary on the Royal Navy method of developing and training officers and doctrine. Any group that was committed to modernizing doctrine was separate from Fishers group designing ships...and also not optimized to disseminating and enforcing new doctrinal thought. I totally agree but I was not going to bring up much of this because I did not intend for this to be a discussion of Fisher and the British Royal Navy's problems in WWI. In fact, most of the training for officers was still built on the Trafalgar model, there was little change. There is a vast difference between designing excellent ships but using outdated and outmoded tactics. This is probably the prime reason for the Jutland failures. As you say, it wasn't Fisher's fault completely although his attitude toward the Pollen Fire Control system was very poor and caused lives in the war. Pollen's system was essentially an analog computer, which was way ahead of its time. It probably would have made the difference at Jutland. Thanks for the inputs and don't stop.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 31, 2017 22:04:43 GMT -6
I just think that replacing them would probably offer more fleet-in-being for your buck. The cost of keeping old battleships is non-trivial. I do understand that point but expenses being what they are, at times one has to balance a new ship versus upgrading an old one, especially in peaceful times. I wanted to replace all my armored cruisers and actually did so, but not with battleships. Many of those armored cruisers are new. I want to remind you that we fought the Japanese Navy to a standstill and essentially put it on the defensive with an older, pre-war fleet. We then built a new fleet during the war and destroyed the Japanese fleet. In this game, wars generally do not last long and since I don't normally unless forced, fight fleet engagements, my ships actually are not that worn out. I put many of my ships into mothballs or reserve to preserve them and reduce costs. However I am open to ideas and if I play Italy today, I might go ahead and build all new ships. I am thinking that around 1913 would be a good year to begin the process. Please continue to provide me with ideas and suggestions, this is why I put this thread up here.... over and above my desire to have fun. Your fleet makes perfect sense considering that you are playing as Austria-Hungary. Austria cannot really afford a large battle fleet, and aside from Italy, taking on another power requires the use of a Guerre de Course (if my french naval terminology is right). In a sense, since Austria can be out built by most other nations, light forces, subs, and armored cruisers are a sort of trifecta for trying to win a war. Realistically, Austria's best chance of winning a war is by destroying enemy commerce, and all battleships can really do is serve as VP for the enemy, or a needless waste of funds: If you can only maintain a handful, than there's not much sense, as France or the UK could easily outnumber you and either blockade, or destroy battleships in combat. A handful to keep Italy from blockading and strong "irregular" forces can see Austria through a lot.
I think what you did was a good example of building to the needs of a country: GB, Germany, Russia, and the USA need battleships, Austria not so much.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 31, 2017 22:20:59 GMT -6
I do understand that point but expenses being what they are, at times one has to balance a new ship versus upgrading an old one, especially in peaceful times. I wanted to replace all my armored cruisers and actually did so, but not with battleships. Many of those armored cruisers are new. I want to remind you that we fought the Japanese Navy to a standstill and essentially put it on the defensive with an older, pre-war fleet. We then built a new fleet during the war and destroyed the Japanese fleet. In this game, wars generally do not last long and since I don't normally unless forced, fight fleet engagements, my ships actually are not that worn out. I put many of my ships into mothballs or reserve to preserve them and reduce costs. However I am open to ideas and if I play Italy today, I might go ahead and build all new ships. I am thinking that around 1913 would be a good year to begin the process. Please continue to provide me with ideas and suggestions, this is why I put this thread up here.... over and above my desire to have fun. Your fleet makes perfect sense considering that you are playing as Austria-Hungary. Austria cannot really afford a large battle fleet, and aside from Italy, taking on another power requires the use of a Guerre de Course (if my french naval terminology is right). In a sense, since Austria can be out built by most other nations, light forces, subs, and armored cruisers are a sort of trifecta for trying to win a war. Realistically, Austria's best chance of winning a war is by destroying enemy commerce, and all battleships can really do is serve as VP for the enemy, or a needless waste of funds: If you can only maintain a handful, than there's not much sense, as France or the UK could easily outnumber you and either blockade, or destroy battleships in combat. A handful to keep Italy from blockading and strong "irregular" forces can see Austria through a lot.
I think what you did was a good example of building to the needs of a country: GB, Germany, Russia, and the USA need battleships, Austria not so much. This is exactly the point I have always made that geography will dictate strategy and that will dictate the force structure that you need. Even Italy is stretching it building a large fleet of battleships. A sizeable force of good tin cans, light and heavy cruisers and plenty of submarines can do a lot of damage. You can build a few armored cruisers then move to battleships or better still, battle-cruisers to implement a Guerre de Course( Yes, your term is correct). Even Japan in this time frame, really does not need battleships but the same fleet composition and geostrategy. You also have to examine your possible opponents and where they are located and what they can develop and build. You have to adapt to the geography of your country. Take a look at the Eurasian continent and one nation will stand out as really not needing battleships, at least not many. That is correct, Russia.
|
|