|
Post by yemo on Mar 22, 2019 15:20:20 GMT -6
Yeah, a good time for Beardmore Shipbuilding. With Athena seeing combat and being successful. I was worried that she would be too slow to intercept cruisers, since she did not see action before. But a NewYork class seems to be the optimal victim, especially when she was supported by another strong cruiser. Did you check her damage level by any chance? I hoped to somewhat shield her superstructure with those 24*5'' casemate guns having 2'' armour. One of the reason why I gave her many 5'' guns instead of fewer 6'' guns.
I really had to force myself to make cuts where ever possible to drive the costs down this much for Geryon. Though I was unsure about the CT armour. From splinter protection to some protection vs secondaries to full protection. Went with the middle option, though still thinking about that.
Very interesting to see the evaluation process. It was hard to come to a similar price per gun for the cheaper design, when aiming for somewhat similar protection. Maybe only possible due to the coal bunkers vs oil firing. Though I would give that a bit more leeway, since it adds another hull (and thus another superstructure and so on), which can soak damage. For example if a 8*14'' design costs 88mio, I would probably consider a 6*14'' design for 70mio to be acceptable (having the same protection). That would mean 4 expensive hulls (352mio + design) with 32*14'' broadside would cost the same as 5 cheap hulls (350mio + a bit cheaper design) with 30*14'' broadside. Imho that would still be a worthy trade, 2*14'' guns for another hull with all its advantages.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 22, 2019 15:31:11 GMT -6
Yeah, a good time for Beardmore Shipbuilding. With Athena seeing combat and being successful. I was worried that she would be too slow to intercept cruisers, since she did not see action before. But a NewYork class seems to be the optimal victim, especially when she was supported by another strong cruiser. Did you check her damage level by any chance? I hoped to somewhat shield her superstructure with those 24*5'' casemate guns having 2'' armour. One of the reason why I gave her many 5'' guns instead of fewer 6'' guns. I really had to force myself to make cuts where ever possible to drive the costs down this much for Geryon. Though I was unsure about the CT armour. From splinter protection to some protection vs secondaries to full protection. Went with the middle option, though still thinking about that. Very interesting to see the evaluation process. It was hard to come to a similar price per gun for the cheaper design, when aiming for somewhat similar protection. Maybe only possible due to the coal bunkers vs oil firing. Though I would give that a bit more leeway, since it adds another hull (and thus another superstructure and so on), which can soak damage. For example if a 8*14'' design costs 88mio, I would probably consider a 6*14'' design for 70mio to be acceptable (having the same protection). That would mean 4 expensive hulls (352mio + design) with 32*14'' broadside would cost the same as 5 cheap hulls (350mio + a bit cheaper design) with 30*14'' broadside. Imho that would still be a worthy trade, 2*14'' guns for another hull with all its advantages. I think with such high number of secondary guns any armour would be terrible expensive and it is not necessary. I do not even know if it is possible to knock out more gun turrets / casametes per one hit. I have not seen it on main turrets yet. In real history it did happen (e.g. Bismarck).
Relating to CT armour. If I do not go with full armour I usually used some middle value early till secondary guns can hit often, after than only splinter protection. 2" of CT armour does not costs so much.
Relating to price per gun. If 88M for 8 guns, than similar price for 6 guns should be 66M. Overall in RTW it is better stronger ship as game seems to try equal forces by numbers a little however more hulls give you more variability which is good especially against USA or other nations that can move their main battleline. If side A has 5 battleships and side B 3 battleships battle when ration is better than 5:3 is less likely than ratio which is worse so it means system helps weaker in terms of numbers.
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Mar 22, 2019 15:58:46 GMT -6
Since only one design can be submitted, I guess that another Geryon (thus without design costs) is an automatic contender to beat?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 22, 2019 16:01:06 GMT -6
Since only one design can be submitted, I guess that another Geryon (thus without design costs) is an automatic contender to beat? Yes, with B superimposed turret I would take design without it as inferior.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 22, 2019 17:22:43 GMT -6
Balsa Construction is pleased to present for the Admiralty's consideration the following battleship proposal: 1907/8/BB.1: Revenge At 20,100 tons, Revenge is somewhat larger than Geryon and carries the same six 14" guns, but has the main battery arranged as a superfiring pair forward and a lone twin turret aft (two-and-one, or 2-A-1). This 2-A-1 configuration should provide superior firepower while closing with or pursuing enemy warships without sacrificing any of Geryon's weight of broadside. Revenge also improves on Geryon's secondary battery with fourteen rather than ten 5" secondary guns, and is protected by an additional half inch of deck armor to safeguard it against plunging fire as improving fire control and heavier guns make long-range hits increasingly likely and increasingly dangerous.
important is costs which needs to be at least 33 % cheaper than variant a) and have a little better protection English note, hopefully you don't mind: When you say "A is X% less expensive than B," the cost of B is the reference cost and the expected cost of A is (1 - X/100) * [cost of B]. Even compared to Proposal B1, the most expensive of the 4x2 proposals, Geryon is only about 28% less expensive. If you were going the other direction with the comparison, however, all of the 4x2 proposals are in excess of 33% more expensive than Geryon, with the least expensive (Battleship E) being a bit over 34% and the most expensive being just shy of 39% more expensive than Geryon.
Also, within the game, if you remove a turret and change nothing else save for the displacement, going from 4x2 to 3x2 will probably reduce the total cost by around 20%, maybe 25% if you also change from oil to coal and it's early in the game.
Attachments:Revenge.zip (32.81 KB)
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Mar 22, 2019 18:25:36 GMT -6
BB-Gorgo
Since the statement was added, that the more powerful ship is preferred if in doubt, we modified Geryon for a 8*14'' broadside and 12*5'' secondaries. At 81 mio, she brings a lot of firepower for an acceptable price. Again somewhat relying on the coal bunkers to add survivability.
PS: Sorry, I tried making a picture, but I always get some background lines and stuff. Without the ability to zoom in while editing the picture, I find it very hard to make something that can somewhat keep up with all of the great pictures in this thread. Wanted to postpone learning that until RTW2, hoping for some zoom-in or snapping functionality.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 22, 2019 23:23:47 GMT -6
PS: Sorry, I tried making a picture, but I always get some background lines and stuff. Without the ability to zoom in while editing the picture, I find it very hard to make something that can somewhat keep up with all of the great pictures in this thread. Wanted to postpone learning that until RTW2, hoping for some zoom-in or snapping functionality. You don't have to use the in-game editor to make the ship image, though using it to generate at least the basic hull and background image is probably easier than doing everything in a separate image editor (the image will be saved as [classname]0.bmp, or possibly a higher number if this is not the first image for a class with that name in the directory, in the Save\Game# directory; if you do want to do everything in a separate program, the standard profile image files are 640x160 bitmaps (*.bmp) and the standard background image is Background.bmp in the ShipParts directory). All the parts are in the ShipParts\ShipSet# directories of the install directory as well as in any additional directories which may have been added if you've downloaded part sets from the Ship Parts thread, and are themselves bitmap (*.bmp) images; you should be able to open them and copy them - or the pieces of them that you want - into your working file in whatever editor program you want to use. Depending on the image editor you use and whether it allows you to set certain colors as transparent or be very specific with the parts you copy it might take a bit of effort to avoid having white rectangles behind the parts you past in (the game uses pure white - RGB 255 255 255 - as a transparent color for the in-game editor, so all of the parts are on white backgrounds), but you can do it. I somewhat frequently do this for anchors and tertiary guns as I have a tendency to forget about them when creating the profile image. Even something like MS Paint will work, though I think most would say that something more along the lines of Paint.net or Gimp are better options.
Also, I'm fairly certain that everyone who kitbashes images at least sometimes throws together something that they don't like. Even if you have a pretty good idea of what you're doing and have a pretty good idea of what you want, you never really know how it'll look until you've 'finished' putting it together, and sometimes - especially while constrained to a predefined set of parts from which to construct your image and while using an editor as basic as the one in Rule the Waves - your concept just doesn't translate to the screen very well. I personally don't particularly care for how the profile images for my Argonaut and especially Eris proposals for the 1901 and 1903 light cruiser contests look, for example. It is, I think, rather unlikely that any of us will say anything nasty about whatever you put up.
Best thing to do if you want to try your hand at it, at least at first, is to keep it simple and avoid trying to put too much detail into it - especially since the images that the game uses are fairly small, all things considered.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 23, 2019 6:47:52 GMT -6
aesonThanks, originally I wanted to write that is 8x14 should be not more than 33 % but opposite way it is better however I forgot to change the percentage as it should be more than 25 % cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Mar 23, 2019 8:34:35 GMT -6
N3 submits the following design in response to the Admiralty's request.
Proposal B3 The B3 design looks to the recent choice in building the Geryon and attempts to both emulate and improve upon that design. The B3 features a uniform 2" deck along it's entire length, providing good protection against all but the heaviest and longest range plunging fire. The conning tower was thickened to be able to resist the vast majority of secondary and cruiser-class guns at all but the closest ranges. The most significant addition is most certainly the twenty-two 152mm secondary guns, allowing the B3 to meet any encroaching destroyer at approximately 10% further range and with a heavier round. These rounds are also expected to perform very well at disabling enemy cruisers and even crippling capital ships. The slower fire rate and lack of armor is countered by the sheer number, with eleven on each side.
Attachments:Proposal B3.50d (4.45 KB)
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Mar 25, 2019 1:42:55 GMT -6
Buchanan Iron Works is honoured to present their Lordships with a battleship design for their consideration. Battleship G - A 21-knot, oil-fired battleship design armed with eight 13.5-inch main battery guns, and a secondary battery of twelve 4.7-inch QF guns. An extensive armor suite provides an immunity zone against her own guns from approximately 6,000 to 16,000 yards. Utilising the most advanced torpedo protection scheme devised for a British battleship allows these vessels the ability to survive a modern torpedo attack. BATTLESHIPG.ZIP (34.87 KB)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 25, 2019 5:29:08 GMT -6
Congratulation Beardmore Shipbuilding for awarding design Gorgo Runner up: Revenge
2 ships with configuration 6x14" and 2 ships with configuraton 8x14"
Category 6x14" (Revenge vs. B3)
- Main vertical and horizontal protection: Revenge has a little better protection horizontal and veltical protection (horizontal 2.5" vs. 2", vertical 12/2.5 vs. 12/2) - Turret protection: is equivalent (13/3.5 vs. 13.5/3) - Extended part vertical and horizontal protection: Revenge has a little worse vs. B3 (2/0 vs. 2/2 vertical, 2 vs. 0 horizontal) - Conning tower: Revenge 2" vs. B3 7" - either ship does not have protection against main guns
- rest about same - Secondary armaments - B3 has better than Revenge (note: see appendix)
Costs: 68M vs. 74M Winner: Revenge (note: for almost 10 % increase of costs B3 does provide only very small increase of protection on extended part of ship and has worse protection on main areas)
Appendix:
As B3 variant provide significantly higher numbers of anti-DD protection with much more 6" guns than other design Admirals want to see conclosure of torpedo hits on our ships. From that conclosure it was stated that we cannot see any need of increase of secondary guns firepower.
Torpedo hits report: There were only 2 torpedo hits to our ship. In both cases it was hits on older armoured cruisers of Diadem class. In boths examples ships were hit at time her captain thought that it was out torpedo arc.
We recommend more stern chases and not trying to go a little by side.
HMS Diadem (armoured cruiser) hit by torpedo from enemy cruiser in May 1902. Damage was severe but cruiser return to port.
HMS Niobe (armoured cruiser) was hit by torpedo launched by enemy cruiser on the 17th of April 1907 and sunk.
Category 8x14" (G vs. Gorgo) - Vertical protection - Variant G very slightly better in extended part (2.5" vs. 2") - Turret protection - Gorgo better than G (13.5/3 vs. 12.5/2) - Horizontal protection - same - Conning tower protection - G better (12" vs. 3.5") - Propulsion - Coal bunkers helps Gorgo protection vs. G with oil propulsion helps sustained max. speed for longer periods - Costs: Gorgo 81M vs. G 85M
Winner: Gorgo (note: even if noted that more powerful ship is advantage, the Gorgo has overall a very little better protection because of better turret protection and only marginally worse over extended parts. CT protection is not as important. And on top of that is the design cheaper)
Final round Revenge vs. Gorgo - Firepower: Broadside Revenge has 33 % smaller than Gorgo, Forward is the same - Turret protection: equal Revenge (13/3.5) vs. Gorgo (13.5/3) - Vertical protection: Revenge (12/2.5) a little better vs. Gorgo (12/2) - Horizontal protection: Revenge (2.5") a little better vs. Gorgo (2") - Other similar
- Costs: Revenge (68.2M) vs. Gorgo (81.4M) - Revenge is 16 % cheaper. Winner: Gorgo (note: a little better protection of Gorgo - marginally vertical protection, better horizontal protection is not enough with comparison of only 16 % being cheaper for 33 % of lost firepower. In competition 1907/7/BB 6x14" variant was cheaper by 27% which has some sence, 16 % it has not)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 25, 2019 6:35:13 GMT -6
Just small note. If somebody would like to have some reports about action to better design you can ask anytime. I do not store every information about battles but general ones and most important events, I do.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 25, 2019 15:49:25 GMT -6
End of war with USA
11/1907 – HMS Gorgo is laid down 11/1907 – As Royal Navy controls the Caribbean Admiralty decided to launch invastion on Puerte Rico 12/1907 – The Blockade is causing food shortages and privations in USA 12/1907 – US raiders sunk 3 merchants 12/1907 – Convoy attack near Puerto Rico Our force of armoured cruisere HMS Deimos and protected cruisers of HMS Arex, HMS Ajax (Amphion class) 12/1907 – USA has commissioned battleship North Dakota 12/1907 – Revolutionary ideas from USA are infecting our workers and soldiers 1/1908 – Demonstrations occur in some cities in Great Britain demanding peace and bread 1/1908 – American raiders sunk 3 merchants 2/1908 – American raiders sunk 7 merchants 2/1908 – Trade disruption from raiders are causing hardship and food shortages in Great Britain 2/1908 – Coastal raid on Norfolk Our armoured cruiser HMS Athena and protected cruiser HMS Comus were tasked to destroy local storage and ammunition depo. They destroy all targets and started to intercept merchant shipping sinking merchant, destroyer and minesweeper. During night 2 ships were sighted by HMS Athena from northeast. After short time captain of HMS Athena identified both ships as American battleships and withdraw from battle. 2/1908 – Our forces have taken possesion of Puerto Rico 2/1908 – The Government of USA has collapsed in revolution. The president has been deposed. They have been forced to accept harsh peace conditions. We take over North Dakota battleship and renamed it to HMS Bellerophon and Panama.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 25, 2019 17:11:56 GMT -6
Royal Navy starts another war - budget
Lesson learnt 1. Hunting enemy cruisers is difficult. Our cruisers have problem find enemy cruisers with numbers we have 2. Capital ships is no as important if we have numerical advantage as enemy forces does evade battles
After the war the budget was cut at level in 1900 thus providing another challenge.
Reserve funds: 22.9M Monthly budget: 7.8M Maintenance: -4.5 M
Construction: -8.4M Research: -0.8M Monthly balance: -5.9M HMS Indomitable construction costs: +3M HMS Indomitable maintenance: -0.4M Forecasted monthly balance in April 1908: -3.3M
Royal Navy needs to save 3.3M per month which is impossible with current fleet. We need to decide which ships will be scrapped, which will take part of reserve fleet and which will be mothballed.
Colonial station requirements: The Mediterranean: 25000 tons West Africa, Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia, Northeast Asia, North America East coast, the Caribbean: 6000 tons TOTAL: 61000 tons
Foreign guns: Germany: 12Q0 France: 12Q0 USA: 13Q0 Italy: 13Q0
We need to find how we can finish both ship without need to scrap one of them or stop their construction for several months.
HMS Resolution (North Dakota class) - it has 465 tons of unused displacement
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 25, 2019 17:52:55 GMT -6
COST SAVING PROGRAM
The main targets are: - to maintain construction program in full speed, maximum 3 months delay accepted - to stabilizing fleet against any threat
Budget balance (after launching HMS Indomitable without her maintenace costs): -2.9M Budget reserve: 18M (22M-4M for 1st month) - needed max -1.2M budget per month (we expect increase of budget in time)
Fleet needs: (with basic expectation for fleet to be ready in 1912)
Battleships: We have 6 battleships as USA, additional 2 under construction, USA only 1 ==> we cannot scrap any battleship yet - Rodney class - mothball, HMS Resolution to the Mediterranean, HMS Dreadnought Home fleet
Battlecruisers/armoured cruisers: we have 3 armoured cruiser and will have 1 battlecruiser, France has 6 armoured cruisers. HMS Diadem is still better than half of foreign designs. No ship could be spared - HMS Athena, HMS Diadem mothball, HMS Diadem to reserve fleet
Protected cruisers: 20 cruisers were bare minimum in war with USA.
- Comus class - still able to fight about half of enemy designs and ideal ship for foreign duties in case of war ==> mothball 7 ships, 4 to foreign stations
- Arethusa class - still more powerful cruiser however too expensive - mothbal - Amphion class - all ships to foreign stations - Centaur class - Home fleet Destroyers: - Derwent class - 2 ships will escort HMS Resolution to the Mediterranean, 9 ships mothballed - Rother class - Home fleet
Another savings:
- scrap 3 coastal submarines - scrap coastal fortifications
TOTAL savings: 1.7 M
TOTAL updated budget: -1.2M
Any suggestions welcome.
|
|