|
Post by generalvikus on Dec 3, 2017 21:10:36 GMT -6
Some may deem it wasteful, but I use the contrary approach, and win 90%+ of my wars & games. I start training Night Fighting & Gunnery on turn one, and leave it in place all game. Perhaps my fleets are smaller or "less modern", but winning is possible all the same. Focus on gunnery and gun tubes, steer as steady a course as possible, and win. I presume this tactic can work well enough for any country, if it focuses on ship quality over quantity. Its necessity is greatest for countries who require superior quality to make up for a deficiency in quantity, like Japan. A small number of expensive, high quality ships should have their crews trained as well as possible. It is, I think, likely less than optimal for countries which could otherwise enjoy a quantity advantage over their opponents, like the UK and USA, but I so far I have always used my strategy myself and so don't have any point of reference.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 4, 2017 1:01:41 GMT -6
Especially late in the game, the USA will only rarely need anything remotely approximating an austerity measure to have a crushing numerical superiority over any opponent other than Great Britain or maybe Germany, and that'll be even more true if you play with historical resources rather than game.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Dec 4, 2017 1:40:07 GMT -6
Especially late in the game, the USA will only rarely need anything remotely approximating an austerity measure to have a crushing numerical superiority over any opponent other than Great Britain or maybe Germany, and that'll be even more true if you play with historical resources rather than game. Like I said, playing as Great Britain and maintaining the largest budget in the game for the entire duration of the game so far up to 1923, my battle fleet has been comfortably overtaken by the American battle fleet in both ship numbers and tonnage, even though I focused a great portion of my construction budget on keeping up with them - to the point where other parts of the fleet feel somewhat inadequate. On the other hand, tensions with the USA have remained low since early in the game, and British security has not been seriously threatened by any other power; Germany did not mount a serious challenge until the beginning of the 1920s, and Japan is only just coming into its own. I did not, therefore, mean to suggest an inability to fight the wars that I have been presented with resulted from my spending on gunnery training. I have only had to fight France (once) Italy (twice) and Russia (three times) and all of those powers were comfortably defeated. All I meant to suggest was that training has imposed serious enough limitations on the expansion and modernisation of the navy that I have been overtaken by a power with a considerably smaller budget; I've therefore concluded that the strategy was inefficient considering the circumstances. I could not really measure the value of gunnery training, however, unless I fought the American fleet and determined whether my training provided a decisive advantage. Note: I always play with Historical Resources and always intend to.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Dec 4, 2017 3:32:49 GMT -6
Another thing to bear in mind is that your budget will be significantly cut to below pre-war levels following a peace treaty, so I tend to use war budgets as an opportunity to improve light forces rather than build capital ships with the money increase, because I'll only have to halt them when peace comes to avoid going into the red.
I'm currently playing a game as the UK and trying some of the suggestions proposed in this thread, and the training suggestion has made a significant difference: I'm currently able to build up to 4 Dreadnoughts* simultaneously in 1919 on a post-war budget, and have managed to keep my cruiser forces (which I would prioritise over my battle line to be honest) mostly up to date. THe difficulty is that I'm approaching the stage of the game where my CAs are becoming hopelessly obsolete, as is the bulk of my CL force, which is gonna really bite into my budgets in the coming years (I.e. I'm probably gonna have to decelerate Battleship construction).
*I use the term 'Dreadnought' often to denote both Dreadnought Battleships and Battlecruisers.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Dec 4, 2017 6:08:23 GMT -6
Another thing to bear in mind is that your budget will be significantly cut to below pre-war levels following a peace treaty, so I tend to use war budgets as an opportunity to improve light forces rather than build capital ships with the money increase, because I'll only have to halt them when peace comes to avoid going into the red. I'm currently playing a game as the UK and trying some of the suggestions proposed in this thread, and the training suggestion has made a significant difference: I'm currently able to build up to 4 Dreadnoughts* simultaneously in 1919 on a post-war budget, and have managed to keep my cruiser forces (which I would prioritise over my battle line to be honest) mostly up to date. THe difficulty is that I'm approaching the stage of the game where my CAs are becoming hopelessly obsolete, as is the bulk of my CL force, which is gonna really bite into my budgets in the coming years (I.e. I'm probably gonna have to decelerate Battleship construction). *I use the term 'Dreadnought' often to denote both Dreadnought Battleships and Battlecruisers. My issue was precisely the same, and it is an issue I imagine to be particularly unique to the UK, which requires a large cruiser force at all times and, perhaps, asks more of its cruisers than any of the other nations. In my legacy fleet, I had 10 Victoria class cruisers for colonial service and commerce protection, and (originally, as far as I can remember) about 10 Conquest class ships for fleet roles. The Victorias, being the slower of the two, were never built to last and so had to be replaced; by the time this lengthy process had been completed with the money leftover from the dreadnought race, it was much too late to satisfactorily rebuild the Conquests, (which had only received a single fire control upgrade in 1912) since doing so would have been more expensive than building a modern light cruiser. Nevertheless, there was nothing around to replace them, which left them in the active fleet until the present day of 1923, with a replacement finally on its way. The fact that I had reached this state of affairs, at the same time as having my battlefleet overtaken by the USA's (which also had cruiser parity with me in tonnage and an advantage in numbers, and while its cruisers were generally worse, it already has modern light cruisers which are superior to mine) all while having a considerably greater budget than the USA, which convinced me that my peacetime readiness levels were simply too high.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 4, 2017 8:54:49 GMT -6
THe difficulty is that I'm approaching the stage of the game where my CAs are becoming hopelessly obsolete, If you look at the historical development of navies, armored cruiser forces did become obsolete after dreadnoughts as all the money went to battleships instead. It was when the naval treaties put a stop to battleship construction that navies shifted to heavy cruisers in a big way.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Dec 4, 2017 9:28:55 GMT -6
THe difficulty is that I'm approaching the stage of the game where my CAs are becoming hopelessly obsolete, If you look at the historical development of navies, armored cruiser forces did become obsolete after dreadnoughts as all the money went to battleships instead. It was when the naval treaties put a stop to battleship construction that navies shifted to heavy cruisers in a big way. I think it would be wrong to imply that armoured cruisers were simply 'obsolete' because no resources were being directed to building and developing them; armoured cruisers, as a type of ship that is distinguished by its reciprocating steam engines and guns of up to 10 inches, were superseded by the battle cruiser. Heavy cruisers are entirely distinct as a type of ship, and were made viable not simply by a halt in battle cruiser construction but the shift to better oil fired engines which allowed them to outrun capital ships. Heavy cruisers were being designed and built before the treaty came into force; the first ones were laid down in 1916.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 4, 2017 10:01:34 GMT -6
If you look at the historical development of navies, armored cruiser forces did become obsolete after dreadnoughts as all the money went to battleships instead. It was when the naval treaties put a stop to battleship construction that navies shifted to heavy cruisers in a big way. I think it would be wrong to imply that armoured cruisers were simply 'obsolete' because no resources were being directed to building and developing them; armoured cruisers, as a type of ship that is distinguished by its reciprocating steam engines and guns of up to 10 inches, were superseded by the battle cruiser. Heavy cruisers are entirely distinct as a type of ship, and were made viable not simply by a halt in battle cruiser construction but the shift to better oil fired engines which allowed them to outrun capital ships. Heavy cruisers were being designed and built before the treaty came into force; the first ones were laid down in 1916. It is not completely true. The were no "heavy cruisers" before London Naval Treaty (LNT). There were limits 10.000 tons on cruiser tonnage imposed by Washington Naval Treaty (WNT). On LNT there were set up 2 categories of cruisers: a) up to 6.1" guns b) up to 8" guns Thus there is "light" and "heavy" cruiser and the only difference is main caliber guns, usually protection was not so different. Cruisers involve in time and during WW1 and after they increase in displacement and even in caliber of guns. However their classification to light and heavy cruisers came from LNT and such as Hawkings class is considered as heavy cruiser even ships of the class were laid down in WW1.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 4, 2017 13:14:29 GMT -6
It is not completely true. The were no "heavy cruisers" before London Naval Treaty (LNT). There were limits 10.000 tons on cruiser tonnage imposed by Washington Naval Treaty (WNT). On LNT there were set up 2 categories of cruisers: a) up to 6.1" guns b) up to 8" guns Thus there is "light" and "heavy" cruiser and the only difference is main caliber guns, usually protection was not so different. Cruisers involve in time and during WW1 and after they increase in displacement and even in caliber of guns. However their classification to light and heavy cruisers came from LNT and such as Hawkings class is considered as heavy cruiser even ships of the class were laid down in WW1. One could argue that the only reason why the "only" difference between light and heavy cruisers is the caliber of the main battery is that the development of the heavy cruiser was arrested by the 10,000 ton limit imposed by the Washington Naval Treaty. Also, heavy cruisers tended to be around 20-100% larger by displacement than contemporary or near-contemporary light cruisers built by the same power until the 1930s. The Hawkins-class cruisers, at about 9750 tons, are nearly double the displacement of most of the contemporary British light cruisers, and they and the County-class heavy cruisers are still around 30% heavier than the Emerald- and Leander-class light cruisers (the York-class heavy cruisers at about 8300 tons are 'only' about 10-15% larger by displacement than the Emeralds and Leanders, but they were intended as a cheaper alternative to the 10,000 ton Hawkins- and County-class cruisers), and it's not until the 1936 Town class that Britain built a ~10,000 ton light cruiser. The story is similar in the Imperial Japanese, French, Italian Royal, and German Navies, and presumably elsewhere, though I have not checked. This is also more or less true of the post-treaty cruisers built for the US Navy during and immediately after the Second World War - the Baltimore-class heavy cruisers are around 20% larger than the near-contemporary Cleveland- and Fargo-class light cruisers, while the Des Moines-class heavy cruisers are around 20% larger than the Worcester-class light cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Dec 4, 2017 14:05:47 GMT -6
This debate and debate about ship design philosophy REALLY makes me wish there was multi-player.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Dec 4, 2017 14:52:23 GMT -6
Without the tonnage limit, the two types would not have been differentiated, heavy cruisers would simply have been part of a trend towards heavier and heavier CLs, and would still have been called CLs, while what we call "light cruisers" would have been outclassed and no longer constructed.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 4, 2017 16:18:17 GMT -6
Without the tonnage limit, the two types would not have been differentiated, heavy cruisers would simply have been part of a trend towards heavier and heavier CLs, and would still have been called CLs, while what we call "light cruisers" would have been outclassed and no longer constructed. Debatable; Japan, Great Britain, France, and Italy all continued building <8000t 6" cruisers well after the ratification of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 alongside the near-treatymax ~10,000t 8" cruisers despite neither cruiser numbers nor total tonnage being limited by that treaty, and 6" cruisers of approximately the same displacement as contemporary 8" cruisers are atypical outside of the 1930s USN construction programs.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 4, 2017 17:33:05 GMT -6
Just some random thoughts on the issue of armored cruisers, battle-cruisers and the like. Battle-cruisers began as an armored cruiser fitted with all big-gun armament. It was a logical improvement over the armored cruisers and in fact, in the Admiralty requests to the Parliament, it was given the name "large armored cruiser". So now where did the name "battle-cruiser' actually come from?
In 1893, a paper was presented to the British designer that argued that the "size and offensive powers " of some cruisers would "justify attaching the name of battle-cruisers" to them. The paper was titled " On the Present Position of Cruisers in Naval Warfare" Transactions of the Institute of Naval Architects, Vol 34, 1893, pp. 3,5. I am looking for that document in Internet Archive.
With the addition of improved steam engines and the use of turbines; the use of Nickel, Harvey and later Krupp Cemented armor, along with investigations in the hydrodynamic effects of hull design on wave action to improve speed and of course, improved powder and guns, the logical evolution of the armored cruiser was the battle-cruiser which had the exact mission as the armored cruiser.
One thing I've learned in working around the military and studying it, military use terminology to disguise items that they want to sell to the government but don't want them to really know what they are approving. The issue of the large armored cruiser instead of the battlecruiser which was of course, a fast battleship seems to fit that profile.
Alright, here is one for you. What was our first US armored cruiser..... Waaaait for it...... The USS Maine. However, before it was finished, it was changed to a second-class battleship.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Dec 4, 2017 18:54:57 GMT -6
We seem to have fulfilled our usual quota for digression. While the finer points of distinction between light, heavy, armoured, and battle-cruisers are very interesting, I would prefer we stick to the original topic (though I'll say that oldpop's point about 'battlecruiser' being a disguise for 'fast battleship' is very interesting, and sounds compelling to me.)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 4, 2017 19:28:27 GMT -6
Getting back to the original questions
1. What the guiding principles regarding fleet readiness? Answer: I use geography to determine my fleet readiness. Nations like Germany which has France to the West, Russia to the East and Great Britain across the North Sea cannot afford to be lax in training and maintenance. Italy, Austria-Hungary also cannot be lax, they have potential enemies within about 800 miles of their coast line so they have to be ready. Japan is between full readiness and less readiness. Her main opponent is usually Germany which is not difficult, Russia which is near but may not have sufficient forces to cope or France in SE Asia. Her biggest threat is the US and that is not an easy opponent for anyone. The US and Great Britain have some slack time, they can reduce their fleets and still get their reserve and mothballed fleets in active service quickly.
2. What rough ratio do you maintain between the construction and maintenance budgets in peacetime? Answer: Well, who knows. I try to keep building useful ships and updating the older ones but I don't actually have a numeric ratio. Maybe I will pay more attention to that.
3. What sort of readiness levels do you maintain at various levels of tension? Answer: I don't like wars so I don't change my readiness levels because that will inevitably lead to increased tensions. Wars do harm to your fleet, prestige and economy. I don't like that at all.
4. Specifically regarding Britain- what measures do you take to maintain a cost - effective Imperial Defense. Answer: Just because your the biggest brute on the block, doesn't mean you have to go after everyone. I generally just maintain a good, well trained core fleet especially in the colonies and try to delay a war or conflict with another nation as long as I can.
Generally, I am a big fan of submarines and I can safely say that I have won many wars, almost all by using Guerre De Course or trade warfare using the little underhanded submarine. I go high on research until I get medium range submarine and then build as many as possible. I believe submarine do a much better job of reducing an opponents trade, especially if its Germany or Italy since they are boxed in the Med.
|
|