|
Post by aeson on Mar 25, 2019 21:17:43 GMT -6
My deployment recommendations: - Resolution (North Dakota class) move to the Mediterranean from Northern Europe.
- Argonaut (Amphion class) to the Indian Ocean from Southeast Asia. - Caliope and Calypso (Comus class) to the Mediterranean from the Indian Ocean.
- Ares (Amphion class) stays in the Caribbean. - All other Comus-class cruisers stay where they are currently. - Everything else pulls back to Northern Europe.
That's approximately the least expensive deployment you can manage (you could substitute a pair of Rothers for a Comus in the Mediterranean, but it'd only save you around 25k/turn, and then send six Rothers and the Comus released from the Mediterranean to relieve an Amphion to save another ~10k/turn). If you want to put the Amphions on foreign station instead, you can do that, but it's not really going to benefit you - with the moves listed above, everything meant for a colonial squadron is either on its assigned station this turn or will be on its assigned station next turn.
After that, about the greatest reduction in expenses you can get is to place Athena, the Rodneys, the destroyers, and the minesweepers into Mothballs while Dreadnought, Diadem, Deimos, three Amphions, two Centaurs, and two Arethusas (everything else in home waters, basically) goes into the Reserve Fleet. All together, that'll reduce your deficit to about 800k to 1M per turn (accounting for the funds released by the completion of Indomitable). You can leave a couple of ships in home waters (for example Dreadnought and a couple cruisers) active without exceeding your target deficit of 1.2M/turn, but that's about it until the budget goes up.
Oh, and if you want to save another half million or so a turn, you could always cancel Gorgo and lay down Revenge instead. It'll 'only' take ten turns or so to make up the design fees for Revenge in saved construction costs.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 26, 2019 1:11:34 GMT -6
@eason
Thanks for recommondations. Firstly I was thinking to have Amphions around the globe and mothball Comus which will when war starts go to foreign station. But it could be prabobly better to mothball Amphions as they are more powerful and can more easily adapt.
The rest you have same opinion except destroyers. But it is true that these small destroyers could be probably mothballed.
Cancelling Gorgos does not give me anything as more than 15M has been invested into design and construction. And she could probably compete with 2nd generation of dreadnoughts.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 26, 2019 1:39:01 GMT -6
Cancelling Gorgos does not give me anything as more than 15M has been invested into design and construction. And she could probably compete with 2nd generation of dreadnoughts. That wasn't a serious suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 26, 2019 3:29:26 GMT -6
Peace all around
4/1908 – High capacity pumps invented 4/1908 – Hydraulic rammers invented 4/1908 – one of the Admirals come with idea of savings to use 3 guns turret 4/1908 – Japan has commissioned battleship Kashima (17200 tons, 6x11“) 4/1908 – USA has commissioned armoured cruiser Huntington (13300 tons, 25 knots, 4x10“, 14x8“ guns, 5“ belt armour) 4/1908 – Derwent class destroyers really need maintenance refit, but RN has no budget to allow that 5/1908 – private shipbuilding has increased dock size to 25000 tons 6/1908 – after winning war and cutting military budget harshly people attitude toward government improves rapidly 8/1908 – Japan has commissioned battleship Hizen of Kashima class 8/1908 – France has commissioned battleship Suffren (20200 tons, 20 knots, 6x13“ guns, 10“ belt) 8/1908 – industrial production is soaring as new methods and technology are introduced 9/1908 – new 27000 tons docks completed 10/1908 – ASW mines invented 10/1908 – Germany has commissioned semi-dreadnought Swaben (17400 tons, 18 knots, 4x12“, 12x10“ guns, 10.5“ belt armour) 10/1908 – Russia has commissioned battlecruiser Nazarin (17400 tons, 25 knots, 6x13“ guns, 7“ belt) 10/1908 – intelligence reports that no nation is building cruisers 10/1908 – private shipbuilding expands dock to 28000 tons 11/1908 – USA has commissioned battleship Illinois (sister of HMS Resolution) 12/1908 – Krupp Cementit armour developed 12/1908 – There has been an internal upheaval in Angola. Prime Minister sent expeditionary force to restore order, however the situation has spiraled out of control and local warlord has taken over as president. 1/1909 – There has been internal upheaval in Bornea. After fiasko in Angola Prime Minister refuse sending expeditionary force. 2/1909 – chief designer shows Admiralty feasability study that with ship with at least 25000 tons it is possible to have 5 centerline turret 2/1909 – Improved diving gear for submarines invented 3/1909 – 50M has been collected by popular subscription to finance a new battleship 3/1909 – After First Lord return from Germany, he was asked by a journalist to comment Germany ships. First Lord answered their rust buckets with indifferently trained sailors and indolent officers are no match for our navy 4/1909 – Preheater invented 4/1909 – USA has laid down Tacoma class cruiser (5000 tons)
note: 50M bonus for battleship is quite a bonus when battleship costs are construction budget about 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 26, 2019 4:18:59 GMT -6
COMPETITION 1909/9/BC - 1 battlecruiser- speed: at least 26 knots - note to propulsion: oil propulsion with engine tuned for speed is considered slightly better to coal propulsion with engines tuned as normal (without taking costs and protection into considaration) - firepower: at least 6x14" broadside - no torpedo tubes - at least 8x4" anti-DD broadside or equivalent with at least 5 guns on broadside (only guns up to 6" are considered as anti-DD) - maximum allowed monthly construction costs are 4M (to be budget neutral after finishing both battleships) - preferred monthly construction costs are 3.5M (explanation: if 2 designs are same except one design is 15 % cheaper and has 15 % less firepower, than if at least 1 ship has monthly construction budget between 3.5-4M per month, cheaper ship is preferred, if both ships has construction monthly budget less than 3.5M they are considered equal) - for double vs. tripple turrets, see revision calculation of broadside taking into considaration reliability double vs. triple turrets
- all forward guns arrangement is prohibited for role-playing purposes till 1920 GENERAL CONDITIONS:- any shipyard can provide 2 designs- any shipyard will provide design picture and design file (*.40d) - any shipyard are recommended to provide explanation of design futures Evaluation will be done based on firepower of main guns, protection and costs. Powerful battleship will be considered as better in case of similar evaluation. Deadline for proposals - the 29th of March however I close the competition as soon as I get your designs. If you need more time, just mentioned it. note for calculation of broadside (b) and turret firepower (f) f1, f2, f3, f4 ... turrets firepower
b = f1+f2+f3+f4
fi = k * n * c ^ 3 for each turret n ... number of guns in turret c ... guns caliber k = 1 for double turret, k = 0.85 for triple turret
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 26, 2019 14:42:49 GMT -6
Balsa Construction is pleased to present for the Admiralty's consideration the following battlecruiser proposals: 1909/9/BC.1: Incomparable Something of a departure from our usual design practices, Incomparable places a heavy emphasis on firepower, carrying no fewer than ten 14" guns in two triple and two twin turrets, arrayed in fore-and-aft superfiring pairs with the triples below the twins. A secondary battery of a sixteen 5" guns completes the armament and amply protects the ship against torpedo boats and small cruisers, though a comprehensive torpedo protection system was nevertheless designed into the ship.
1909/9/BC.2: Illustrious For the more economically minded, Illustrious is a derivative of our Revenge-class battleship proposal and carries a main battery of six 14" guns in three twin turrets - two forward in a superfiring pair and one aft.
Attachments:Battlecruisers.zip (65.45 KB)
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Mar 27, 2019 3:04:14 GMT -6
N3 submits the following Battlecruiser proposals for consideration.
Proposal G3 The G3 design represents what N3 sees as a "minimal" modern day battlecruiser. Armed with seven 14" guns and fourteen 5" secondaries, the G3 packs a hefty wallop into it's small frame. A 2" full length deck provides reasonable protection at range, although the main belt is not rated for direct capital ship engagements (or at least, not until they've been worn down). The true appeal of the G3 comes in it's price tag, a mere 2.9M per turn. A real bargain, to be sure.
Proposal G4 The G4 design adds an additional 14" gun, bringing the total up to eight. Primary armor surfaces are improved by an inch and a torpedo defense system is included. This increases the price to 3.4M a turn, still a quite affordable sum.
Attachments:Proposal G3.50d (4.96 KB)
Proposal G4.50d (4.96 KB)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 27, 2019 3:20:18 GMT -6
aeson: Thanks for the designs. Incomparable is quite interesting design, with a lot of punch. However your monthly construction budget is over 4M (no matter it is not signaficantly), which is one of the minimum requests. This means I will need to discard that designs because I stated before I will do evaluation in line with request.
noshurviverse: Thanks for the design, some of them are nice minimalistic. However If you look on evaluation of previous designs, you can see that extended deck protection is valued but quite lower in priority. This means you spend up to 427 tons (around 2 % of displacement) to somethig with limited value. It can give your design certain disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Mar 27, 2019 3:33:24 GMT -6
Thanks for the design, some of them are nice minimalistic. However If you look on evaluation of previous designs, you can see that extended deck protection is valued but quite lower in priority. This means you spend up to 427 tons (around 2 % of displacement) to somethig with limited value. It can give your design certain disadvantage.
True, but I'm usually rather paranoid about taking splinter damage. With a BC, where speed is your armor against capital ships, having a superstructure burst also perforate your uptakes or something and knock off a couple knots of speed can be a death sentence.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 27, 2019 3:53:40 GMT -6
Thanks for the design, some of them are nice minimalistic. However If you look on evaluation of previous designs, you can see that extended deck protection is valued but quite lower in priority. This means you spend up to 427 tons (around 2 % of displacement) to somethig with limited value. It can give your design certain disadvantage.
True, but I'm usually rather paranoid about taking splinter damage. With a BC, where speed is your armor against capital ships, having a superstructure burst also perforate your uptakes or something and knock off a couple knots of speed can be a death sentence. I completely agree, it is the reason when the first battlecruiser with 11" narrow belt in whole lenght of ship was chosen. However I am not ever that extended deck armour is used expect direct hits on extended deck (I think it is used on top of turrets in seconary batteries but it is important mainly for pre-dreadnoughts) on opposite to extended belt which is used to for uptakes.
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Mar 27, 2019 7:39:08 GMT -6
Buchanan Iron Works is honoured to present two battlecruiser designs for their Lordship's consideration: Battlecruiser A - Armed with twelve 12"/45 guns, this design emphasises volume of fire to maximize the potential for first hits, while matching contemporary foreign battleships and battlecruisers for gun caliber. An extensive armour suite provides protection against her own guns from 5,000 yards out to her maximum firing range. Because speed is important in a battlecruiser design, a modern powerplant has been designed with maximum availability as the primary consideration. Oil firing will allow maximum speed steaming for extended periods compared to traditional coal fired plants due to the lack of need for cleaning grates. Even with this firepower and propulsion plant, this design comes in under the allocation from Parliament for the new vessel. (Firepower Factor = 20736) Battlecruiser B - Armed with Nine 13.5"/45 guns, this design emphasises weight of fire to maximize the damage from hits, while exceeding contemporary foreign battleships and battlecruisers for gun caliber. An extensive armour suite provides protection against her own guns from 7,000 yards out to a range of 14,000 yards. Because speed is important in a battlecruiser design, a modern powerplant has been designed with maximum availability as the primary consideration. Oil firing will allow maximum speed steaming for extended periods compared to traditional coal fired plants due to the lack of need for cleaning grates. Even with this firepower and propulsion plant, this design comes in under the allocation from Parliament for the new vessel. (Firepower Factor = 24696) BattlecruiserAB.zip (69.36 KB)
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 27, 2019 12:13:32 GMT -6
aeson : Thanks for the designs. Incomparable is quite interesting design, with a lot of punch. However your monthly construction budget is over 4M (no matter it is not signaficantly), which is one of the minimum requests. This means I will need to discard that designs because I stated before I will do evaluation in line with request. I have updated Incomparable to comply with the 4M/turn maximum. The revised design file and ship image is in the attachment below. Changes from original submission are: reduced displacement to 27,300 tons (from 28,000 tons), reduced secondary armament to twelve 5" guns (from 16), reduced turret top armor to 3" (from 3.5"). Attachments:Incomparable1.zip (32.5 KB)
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Mar 27, 2019 13:25:47 GMT -6
aeson: Thank you for your design picture tips! Unfortunately things got a bit hectic in rl at the moment. This is probably the last competition I can take part in, so I ll probably have to wait until RTW 2 in April before delving into that.
Beardmore Shipbuilding is proud to build the Gorgo for the Royal Navy and presents our two entries for the current BC competition.
BC-Hades
Based on Gorgo, we stretched the hull and replaced the coal firing engines with powerful oil firing ones. Taking the existing Indomitable battlecruiser from Balsa Construction into consideration, we narrowed the belt and increased the extended belt armour to 11 inches (thus increasing protection for the uptakes as well).
BC-Helios For Helios, we took the Gorgo design, stretched the hull and replaced the superimposed aft turret and magazines with additional engine rooms (and a smoke stack). Following the feedback on the last battlecruiser competition, we chose a design speed of 27 knots. This allows for faster than required maximum speed while providing a bit of a buffer if extended periods of high speed are required. The coal bunkers provide some additional protection and the ship is cheaper than an oil firing variant.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 27, 2019 15:47:36 GMT -6
Thanks for the designs. I am not happy to read it but I wish you luck to in real life to sort things out.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 27, 2019 17:01:44 GMT -6
Congratulation Balsa Construction for awarding design Incomparable
They were several interesting design however I decided to choose design with most firepower for the costs and good long range protection.
Runners up: Hades design, B design
|
|