|
Post by dorn on Mar 13, 2019 8:29:52 GMT -6
Through backchannels, a representative from Beardmore Shipbuilding expresses concerns about the parameters of the new design competition. The 57 million Athena was selected 3 years earlier to counter the Vineta and Dupetit-Thouars. And the Montcalm and Gromoboi designs are unknown, but expected to improve at least on the Dupetit-Thouars. Beardmore Shipbuilding is concerned about its reputation, if the new design proves to be unsatisfactory in comparison to the earlier Athena. It would be very agreeable if at least one of the two designs could be somewhat of an improvement upon the Athena (eg for a price of about 57 million, with torpedo tubes allowed?). The other design would meet the criteria laid out above (50million, no torpedos, though so far I do not know how). (But that way, at least we could blame the procurement office for selecting the inferior design ;-) )
Royal Navy appreciate Beardmore Shipbuilding to design super armored cruiser however we have no use for such a ship. HMS Athena was chosen because her speed at that time was satisfactory and her 12" guns could enhance battleline firepower with armour that can defeat any secondary battatery even of battleships. However before Athena design was approved there were a lot of discussion to ask you to redisign ship within budget of 50M and approval of current final desing was only by very small margin.
We do not expect design which would be more powerful to Athena class but we expect that such a design should be faster, have enough protection and firepower to defeat foreign classes but be as much cheap as possible Our designers estimate that ship which would be similar quality of foreign designs would costs less than 40 M, so 50 M budget thus increase of 20 % is maximum which we are willing to pay. Our designers inform us that such a ship could be done withing 45-50 M of budget. We need a ship which will be faster and slightly better we do not need ship which will declass other ships in 5 minutes of fight without taky any damage. We have stations, ports around the world to repair almost any damage the ship could sustain. And we consider that purpose of this armoured cruiser will be only serving in cruiser division without any means to fight guns higher caliber than 10". We expect for such cruiser to be useful much longer time period than is expecting from Athena class cruiser because her speed and maintanence costs allow that. And we need ship which will fight next war, not ship which will may be fight war in 10 years.
We do not want submerged torpedo tubes on our cruiser designs any more as experience shows in war with Germany they are useless.
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Mar 13, 2019 10:46:23 GMT -6
Beardmore Shipbuilding hereby presents our two entries for the 1903/3/AC competition:
1903/3/AC.yemo7: Artemis An updated Athena class, Artemis trades half of her secondaries and all of her torpedo tubes for one knot of speed, central firing, and some secondary armour. With her higher top speed of 23 knots, she can catch up with all foreign cruisers in service and match the japanese Tokiwa. Economically, she has lower maintenance costs than Athena and is prepared for colonial duty to free up other forces from the mediterranean.
We grant an 80% discount on the initial ordering costs, effectively reducing the price of the first vessel by 3.06 million. Thus providing 19500 tons for the mediterranean foreign stations at a maintenance cost of 262k and an effective ordering price of 51.3 million.
1903/3/AC.yemo8: Ananke
Faster and even more economic is the second variation of the Athena design.
Compared to the Artemis, 11 inch guns replace the 12 inch guns, the belt is narrowed and nearly every other armoured part is one inch thinner, except around the belt and extended belt which stay at 6 inches.
Her advantage is the additional knot of speed (24 knots max) and the even cheaper maintenance and ordering costs (although we can not give a discount due to the more extensive modifications). The colonial service provisions are retained as well, with maintenance costs of 243k and ordering costs of
48.7 million.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 13, 2019 15:33:49 GMT -6
Balsa Construction is pleased to present two first class cruiser proposals for the Admiralty's consideration: 1903/3/AC.1: Deimos A further refinement of the earlier Powerful/Europa proposals, Deimos substitutes a pair of 10" guns in en echelon wing turrets for the heavy secondary battery of the earlier designs and cuts a further 500 tons off Europa's displacement while maintaining heavy armor and a speed of 23 knots. A secondary battery of ten 5" guns mounted in casemates provides additional firepower when engaging cruisers while retaining the flexibility to engage attacking torpedo boats and torpedo boat destroyers, and the cruiser's anti-torpedo boat armament is completed by eight 12-pdr 18cwt guns on swivel mounts, one atop each main battery turret and two opposite each of the wing turrets.
1903/3/AC.2: Phobos Balsa Construction's answer to Athena. While its armament is somewhat inferior to that of Athena, we believe that the greatly-superior speed and the heavier main belt of Phobos more than offsets this, especially as its intended opponents are unlikely to be significantly more resistant to its 11" guns than to Athena's 12" guns. Additionally, despite costing over 25% more in total than Deimos, the monthly construction costs of the two ships differ by less than 4%, making Phobos surprisingly economical despite coming in at just under 52.5 million - the utmost limit set by the Admiralty.
Attachments:Proposals.zip (63.08 KB)
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Mar 13, 2019 16:13:01 GMT -6
I m honestly looking forward to seeing Deimos in service. That appears to be very cost efficient for parity!
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 14, 2019 2:53:32 GMT -6
Balsa construction is awarded to build HMS Deimos, construction should start at June 1903.
Artemis design was outside the specification of budget limitation.
Both Ananke and Phobos are interesting designs however we consider Deimos design as capable enough for the task and we do not expect any superior design of foreign nations in near future. Even if this could happen our shipbuilding industry can build adequate answer very quickly. We consider Deimos as at least in par for all categories (firepower, protection, speed) to any foreign designs and against any particual design she is better at least in 2 categories.
Notes: - to pay about 10 M more for design which could provide no advantage against current foreign design is waste of money
- there was no requirements for colonial services at all.
- yemo : I will use Antoine de Saint-Exupery: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."your designs was trying to push firepower and protection to limits without considaration main points: costs and speed which was base guidelines provided. You do same "average cost" design as Ananke and than you propose more powerful version. But you lack costs saving version withing provided parametres and as it was one of main points, your design were not competitive. There was possible to build 26 knots cruiser within specifications under 50 M and 27 knots cruiser within 52.5 M budget which both could be another interesting designs as for such design the speed will enhance her life that ship could be cruiser hunter quite long time. Your designs are just overpowered against foreign armoured cruisers but cannot face foreign battleships and still costs more than Rodney class battleship which is more than 3 years old.
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Mar 14, 2019 6:31:33 GMT -6
For a ship class consisting of only one vessel, imho including the design costs into the consideration is fair (and thus the 80% savings of those costs due to being based on existing Athena). Therefore I still consider Artemis to be within specifications, saving 3 million in terms of "first ship of this class" costs up front and thus effectively being even 1 million cheaper than Phobos. I started with the Artemis design for this very reason, to effectively have a 54 million design (though I should have increased the belt to 7 inches like Phobos) for the price of 51 million.
Colonial service only added 230k to the building costs, since I had the free tonnage anyway. Even potentially saving 3900 tons force requirement for the med was imho worth that small price increase.
Athena (and Artemis, Phobos and even Ananke) are stronger than the NewYork class, from the only foreign navy challenging UK in terms of battleships. Either Artemis or Phobos would have considerably improved that rough battleship balance with the US. And with a trained crew (which such cruisers tend to aquire), imho Athena can even challenge many of the other Bs in service.
I would definately agree, that Deimos is the most efficient vessel to gain individual superiority compared to existing (1900) CAs and most likely even the currently building generation of foreign CAs. I just think that a 20-25% percent increase for Ananke as well as Phobos and Artemis would have been worth their added capabilities.
It seems that I still need to make a clearer mental cut, between looking at the in-game situation from a strategic perspective, and responding to a contest with clear parameters as a ship designer (without second guessing those parameters).
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 14, 2019 6:32:10 GMT -6
Calm years
6/1903 – HMS Deimos of her class is laid down by Balsa construction 6/1903 – HMS Apollo (Amphion class) commissioned 7/1904 – start of program refitting cruisers and battleship with central fire control 7/1903 – Prime Minister decided to send squadron of Cumus class protected cruisers HMS Curacao, HMS Cordelia and HMS Conquest to bombard capital to force releasing of our citizens 8/1903 – HMS Ajax (Amphion class) commisioned 11/1903 – intelligence reports: that new Italian battleship of Regina Elena class has belt armour 8“ 12/1903 – Admiralty decided to suppress all socialist propaganda in the navy before the election 12/1903 – Range calculators invented 2/1904 – We sold Preheaters to Italian Government 3/1904 – Prime Minister has returned a state visit to Germany, bringing home a proposal to solve outstsanding sources of tension between our nations. However First Lord told Prime Minister that we should arm ourselves as Germany should be never trusted. 4/1904 – recent improvements in productivity has boosted our industrial production 5/1904 – our Quality control over production of armour has increased 5/1904 – one of our Admiral has proposed idea of increasing gun caliber of wing turrets to same level as main battery 5/1904 – we put in motion Improved signalling in our fleet 5/1904 – intelligence report: US battleship Delaware is reportedly be commissioned in 8 months 5/1904 – intelligence report: French protected cruiser of Tage class has speed of only 20 knots 5/1904 – intelligence report: French protected cruiser of Surcouf class has top speed of 22 knots 5/1904 – intelligence report: French armoured cruiser of Amiral Cecille class has speed of 22 knots and armour belt of only 2“ 6/1904 – German commissioned armoured cruiser Hansa (8100 tons, 4x8“, 10x6“, 4.5“ belt, 21 knots) 6/1904 – intelligence report: French Moltcalm class armoured cruiser has 4“ belt armour and top speed either 23 or 24 knots 7/1904 – Steam turbines invented 7/1904 – intelligence report: the Russian Navy is reportedly doing a lot of night training 7/1904 – intelligence report: new Russian cruiser Novik class has top speed of 24 knots 7/1904 – intelligence report: new Russian battleship Pervenets has top speed of 19 knots and 9“ belt armour 8/1904 – Control tops invented 8/1904 – with low tension, Parliament votes to reduce naval spending 9/1904 – France commissioned armoured cruiser Bruix of Moltcalm class (4x10“, 14x7“, 4“ belt, 24 knots) 9/1904 – USA stop construction of one battleship due to financial difficulties 10/1904 – France commissioned 2nd armoured cruiser of Moltcalm class 10/1904 – Admiralty invested to enlarged ports in Kingston, Freeport and Port of Spain
Actual tension: USA: 7 Germany: 6 Italy: 4 France: 3 Russia: 3 Japan: 2
Comparison Royal Navy with some others navies (included ship in construction):
Royal Navy (operational ships except foreign stations): Actual variant: (blockade points: 77)
battleships: 3 armoured cruisers: 3+1 protected cruisers: 5 destroyers: 18 submarines: 6
Alternative variant: (blockade points 82) battleships: 4 armoured cruisers: 2+1 protected cruisers: 5 destroyers: 20 submarines: 6
USA (blockade points 90) foreign stations: 1 CA, 4 CL, 3 DD battleships: 4+3 armoured cruisers: 0 protected cruisers: 7 destroyers: 13 Analysis: USN has larger fleet available mostly battleships, their cruiser force is completely inferior to Roal Navy
Germany (blockade points 76)
battleships: 0+3 armoured cruisers: 4 protected cruisers: 5 destroyers: 17 Analysis: Kriegsmarine has inferior cruiser force however her new battleships could bring quality advantage over quantity of Royal Navy
Italy (blockade points 70) battleships: 2+1 armoured cruisers: 2 protected cruisers: 6+1 destroyers: 15
Analysis: Italian Navy is completely surpassed by Royal Navy, especially taking advantage of strenght of Grand fleet and Mediterranean fleet together
Debates what construction program should be started 1. first 24 knots armoured cruisers are commissioned by France however we can not see France as our enemy and we have no need to react for such design 2. first 24 knots protected cruisers are reported being constructed in Russia. However we cannot see Russia as our enemy yet. 3. Kriegsmarine has probably superior design of battleship under construction and USN will have 7 battleships compare to 4 of Royal Navy - new battleship program should be considered 4. We should regularly upgrade our cruiser force and sketches from RN designers clearly show us that with steam turbines protected cruiser design can reach 25-27 knots with reasonable costs under 20M per ship
Conclusion: There are several variants from which 1 ore more could be followed:
a) lay down immediately one capital ship b) laid down immediately two capital ships
c) lay down 2 modern protected cruisers d) wait several months till construction of Deimos is finished
EDIT: added save file
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 14, 2019 6:59:06 GMT -6
For a ship class consisting of only one vessel, imho including the design costs into the consideration is fair (and thus the 80% savings of those costs due to being based on existing Athena). Therefore I still consider Artemis to be within specifications, saving 3 million in terms of "first ship of this class" costs up front and thus effectively being even 1 million cheaper than Phobos. I started with the Artemis design for this very reason, to effectively have a 54 million design (though I should have increased the belt to 7 inches like Phobos) for the price of 51 million. Colonial service only added 230k to the building costs, since I had the free tonnage anyway. Even potentially saving 3900 tons force requirement for the med was imho worth that small price increase. Athena (and Artemis, Phobos and even Ananke) are stronger than the NewYork class, from the only foreign navy challenging UK in terms of battleships. Either Artemis or Phobos would have considerably improved that rough battleship balance with the US. And with a trained crew (which such cruisers tend to aquire), imho Athena can even challenge many of the other Bs in service. I would definately agree, that Deimos is the most efficient vessel to gain individual superiority compared to existing (1900) CAs and most likely even the currently building generation of foreign CAs. I just think that a 20-25% percent increase for Ananke as well as Phobos and Artemis would have been worth their added capabilities. It seems that I still need to make a clearer mental cut, between looking at the in-game situation from a strategic perspective, and responding to a contest with clear parameters as a ship designer (without second guessing those parameters). Point noted about design costs and agreed. For future contests I would take it as discount in this case. However Deimos was chosen by large margin.
Point about colonial service - it was just note nothing important and has no effect on contest.
At the point of contest the ship was not meant to fight USN as stated what role it has and against actual armoured cruisers she is excellent design. Even Moltcalm class is inferior of combination firepower and protection, only 1 knot faster which is nothing to be worried about.
Strategy of Royal Navy is clear. Using superior numbers to blockade enemy and meantime using her cruiser force to deal with raiders. Main task is minimalized losses as any larger losses are difficult to replace. At start of war with Germany there was almost no free operation cruiser force except 2 Arethusa class cruisers and 2 Diadem class protected cruisers. Situation starts to changed after new program of 1 armoured cruiser and 5 protected cruisers as there is more available force but still nothing completely overhelming. I found out that for destroying enemy raiders with some reliability there is need large cruiser force as it was in history.
Issue with superb ships is that you get less blockade points in game, UK "hidden flaws" could easily sunk even the largest battleship. Submarines and mines could sink such ships too. If you have smaller cheaper ships it will not hurt you so much and as my "free operational force" is limited and not large than other nations, it is risky to have smaller force in Europe.
As you can see in the first war Germany surrended completely without minimal losses - 1 cruiser (unlucky), 1 destroyer. With more aggresive approach I would risk more but I cannot get more than I got. I got maximum which game allows.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 14, 2019 7:32:35 GMT -6
I'm not terribly happy with the battleships your technology would allow you to lay down right now - you don't have cross-deck fire or a third centerline turret so adding more main battery guns to the broadside costs quite a bit of tonnage, and it's pretty late for laying down a predreadnought/semidreadnought battleship - so I'm inclined to vote for either laying down two or three new protected cruisers or waiting for Deimos to complete before deciding what to do. Probably lay down the cruisers now since you have a decent reserve fund and hope that you'll have the technology for a decent battleship by the time Deimos completes.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 14, 2019 7:46:37 GMT -6
I'm not terribly happy with the battleships your technology would allow you to lay down right now - you don't have cross-deck fire or a third centerline turret so adding more main battery guns to the broadside costs quite a bit of tonnage, and it's pretty late for laying down a predreadnought/semidreadnought battleship - so I'm inclined to vote for either laying down two or three new protected cruisers or waiting for Deimos to complete before deciding what to do. Probably lay down the cruisers now since you have a decent reserve fund and hope that you'll have the technology for a decent battleship by the time Deimos completes. I completely agree with you as it is my dilemma as designing dreadnought with 8x12" broadside would be terrible expensive without any improvements over armour. I get several set backs in ship design in last year.
I am just a little worried about USA and their battleline. 7 capital shis vs. 5 Rodney class and may be Athena because any battleship need at least 2 years to be with fleet. I am not sure if I have 2 years before war will start. But it could be probably handled with caution and training.
Question 1: What happens if foreign stations are not fullfiled? Is there increase of unrests? Question 2: If you activate "FS" on all your ships for foreign colonies and some of them are negative is there any negative effect?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 14, 2019 8:18:22 GMT -6
Question 1: What happens if foreign stations are not fullfiled? Is there increase of unrests? Question 2: If you activate "FS" on all your ships for foreign colonies and some of them are negative is there any negative effect?
1. I think the only effect of leaving foreign stations unfulfilled is that it triggers unrest generation, or possibly unrest-generating events.
2. As far as I am aware, the only real downside to using ships on FS stance to fulfill all of your station requirements is that they can move, which can be problematic in wartime as you may find yourself without ships in an area where you need them.
I prefer to use dedicated cruisers for each station and only use ships in FS stance to cover temporary shortfalls, myself. I agree that the situation vis-a-vis the USA is somewhat concerning, but I don't think waiting a couple months to see if you get at least a third centerline turret or cross-deck fire is going to delay a new battleship by enough to be too problematic.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 14, 2019 8:26:24 GMT -6
Question 1: What happens if foreign stations are not fullfiled? Is there increase of unrests? Question 2: If you activate "FS" on all your ships for foreign colonies and some of them are negative is there any negative effect?
1. I think the only effect of leaving foreign stations unfulfilled is that it triggers unrest generation, or possibly unrest-generating events.
2. As far as I am aware, the only real downside to using ships on FS stance to fulfill all of your station requirements is that they can move, which can be problematic in wartime as you may find yourself without ships in an area where you need them.
I prefer to use dedicated cruisers for each station and only use ships in FS stance to cover temporary shortfalls, myself. I agree that the situation vis-a-vis the USA is somewhat concerning, but I don't think waiting a couple months to see if you get at least a third centerline turret or cross-deck fire is going to delay a new battleship by enough to be too problematic.
Thanks for promtly answer. I thought of that and use FS in same manner. However it is quite inconvinient for small fleet as it favor of 2400 and 4800 tons designs.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 14, 2019 11:13:45 GMT -6
Design competition - October 1904COMPETITION 1904/4/CL - 2 general purpose protected cruisersminimal requested criteria: - should be more powerful that any foreign design up to 4000 tons included at least by small margin (for 0.5" less belt armour, 25 % if increase of firepower is needed, comparison to Gazelle is suggested as such example of foreign design)
- should be reasonable powerful to be able engage any protected cruiser with reasonable chance knowing excellent british seamenship and accuracy of british gunnery (the design could be slightly less armoured or/and have less firepower to the largest cruisers of foreign design)
- for purpose of this competition any comparison of foreign design should be treated as their deck armour is 1" and extended belt and deck armour as unarmoured - for purpose of this competition any unshielded main guns of foreign design should be considered as 1" caliber lower - for purpose of this competition any foreign design with 3" guns secondary battery, that secondary battery should be not taken into consideration
- shielded main battery is preferred over unshielded
- minimal speed of 25 knots - no torpedo tubes - main caliber guns - up to designer preference, mixed batteries for protected cruiser is possible, minimal caliber 5" guns for main battery requested
- vertical over horizontal protection is preferred - maximum costs of 20 M without design costs - 1 FC position is acceptable if conning tower is protected by at least 2" armour Decision criteria: Costs and speed GENERAL CONDITIONS:- any shipyard can provide up to 2 designs - any shipyard will provide design picture and design file (*.40d) - any shipyard are recommended to provide explanation of design futures Deadline for proposals - the 16th of March however I close the competition as soon as I get design from both of you. If you need more time, just ask. note for calculation of broadside (b) b = n * c ^ 3 n ... number of guns c ... guns caliber
eg. Italian Marsala class should be treated as 5x6" broadside with 3" belt and 1" deck armour, Russian Pallada class as 5x5" broadside with 3" belt, 1" deck armour
PS: I hope that it is clear. If something is not completely clear just ask.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 14, 2019 14:01:37 GMT -6
Balsa Construction is pleased to present for the Admiralty's consideration the Enyo- and Eris-class second class cruisers: 1904/4/CL.1: Enyo Despite displacing only 4,000 tons, Enyo carries a powerful armament of eleven shielded 5" and eight casemated 4" guns, giving it a broadside nearly as heavy as that of the 5,300-ton German second class cruiser Ariadne or the 5,200-ton Russian second class cruiser Nadezdha while maintaining excellent anti-torpedo boat capability. Additionally, its design speed of 27 knots - nearly equal to that of the fastest torpedo boats - will allow it to easily maneuver relative to the battle line while performing in the fleet scout and fleet screen roles, run down raiders, or escape more powerful cruisers.
1904/4/CL.2: Eris A development of the Argonaut proposal, Eris carries four 7" guns in two turrets armored against 6" guns, which should easily allow it to dominate any other second class cruiser in the world, and has a secondary battery of ten 4" guns in casemates for protection against torpedo boats. As with Argonaut, Eris has a partial 2.5" armor belt in addition to its 1" armor deck, which we believe would make it the best-protected second class cruiser in the world. While it is much slower than Enyo at merely 25 knots, Eris still comfortably exceeds the speed of most other cruisers currently in service, with only the French Montcalm-class first class cruisers threatening to catch it.
While we do not consider it advisable for Eris to do so without the support of a heavier cruiser or the advantage of superior numbers, we also believe that Eris will have a limited ability to engage many of the first class cruisers in the other powers' navies as the propellants and shell designs which have been developed and deployed since the turn of the century are threatening to make the 4- to 5-inch armor belts common on first class cruisers vulnerable to Eris's 7" guns at reasonable engagement ranges.
Attachments:proposals.zip (62.97 KB)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 14, 2019 14:19:56 GMT -6
Where you get all parts for the picture? I can see many parts which are not part of any set and even some released sets by members?
|
|