|
Post by aeson on Mar 14, 2019 14:34:19 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?
As far as I am aware, all of the ship parts that I have - and all of the parts that I've used for the ships posted in this thread - are available in the Ship Parts for Everyone thread. Sometimes I combine parts from different sets (Enyo has parts from at least three sets - the basic hull was generated using Set 6, the gold casemates are from Set 7, and the grey casemate in the superstructure is from Set 1), and I occasionally recolor some parts of the image in Paint (for example the blue-grey and dark purple areas on Enyo were part of the auto-generated superstructure, but the main battery guns didn't show up well against it so I recolored those areas in Paint). More rarely, I draw something in Paint or a similar program, either directly on the ship image or as a separate part, but I haven't made any separate parts recently and I think all the ones I have are available in the Ship Parts thread.
Is there anything in particular you were thinking of? If you want to point it out, I can either tell you what I did to create it, tell you which set in the Ships Parts thread it's from, or look to see if I have a part that I haven't made available.
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Mar 14, 2019 18:58:13 GMT -6
Beardmore shipbuilding hereby presents two designs for the 1904/4/CL competition
1904/4/CL.yemo9: Cetos Cetos trades a bit of Amphions armament for better belt armour and a far greater top speed of 27 knots. Her tonnage also allows for a refit for colonial duty.
1904/4/CL.yemo10: Centaur
27 knots top speed, decent armour, good armament and an attractive price make this design an efficient choice to intercept raiders and perform light cruiser duties.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 14, 2019 20:19:37 GMT -6
Hmph. Maybe I should've made speed a bit more of a priority for Eris; it could've made 26 knots with speed priority on the engines and either with a dozen unarmored 4" guns instead of the ten 4" guns in lightly-armored casemates or without the torpedo tubes. Oh well; I was expecting it would be the slowest submission anyways... At least it has the heaviest broadside and is (marginally) cheaper than Cetos.
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Mar 14, 2019 21:18:21 GMT -6
;-) Thats how I felt in the last competition, it still annoys me that I did not increase Artemis belt armour to 7 inches like you did with Phobos, when that was the one thing that bugged me most when creating Athena earlier (after accepting the 22 knots speed limit).
I would have preferred two guns able to shoot to the front for my designs, like yours have. But for Cetos, I m scraping the 20 million limit and Centaur is already over the 4000 ton tonnage cliff. I would have had to sacrifice a broadside gun (which I would have done when designing for myself) or belt armour.
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Mar 14, 2019 22:51:03 GMT -6
Buchanan Iron Works is honoured to present their submission for their lordships. Celaeno.50d (5.19 KB)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 15, 2019 2:08:42 GMT -6
Thanks for the designs. I will have time to evaluate them later (I do not know yet when). Thirst impression - I like the 3 cheapest designs. Eris design is good but I do not need complement armoured cruisers and I have still 2 Arethusa class cruisers and 5 Amphion class cruisers which as powerful as any protected cruiser in world. It is same true about Cetos design but it seems to me a little overkill compared to foreign designs.
From 3 most interesting designs I can see 2 basic approaches - 27 knots vs 25 knots with relation to armament and protection and a little costs. And frankly speaking it will be tough decision, I like all 3 designs. I like how Celaeno is cheap and powerful still but making only 25 knots, how Centaur is powerful making even 27 knots however somehowe more expensive and Enyo fast, reasonable powerful.
aeson - I am quite suprised, you mounted secondary battery on your design for 5" caliber cruiser. What is your idea behind it?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 15, 2019 8:04:27 GMT -6
;-) Thats how I felt in the last competition, it still annoys me that I did not increase Artemis belt armour to 7 inches like you did with Phobos, when that was the one thing that bugged me most when creating Athena earlier (after accepting the 22 knots speed limit). I would have preferred two guns able to shoot to the front for my designs, like yours have. But for Cetos, I m scraping the 20 million limit and Centaur is already over the 4000 ton tonnage cliff. I would have had to sacrifice a broadside gun (which I would have done when designing for myself) or belt armour. You cannot read my mind. I have overall strategy for Royal Navy which I tried share with you (if you are not sure about that strategy I do not mind asking any time). And my construction program needs to fulfill that strategy. Frankly speaking HMS Athena was a little out of the box however it fit quite nicely to help deal with potential USA threat. It can even happen that she would be the least usefull ship in the fleet but it is life (=game) and sometimes it has nothing to do with design itself. On contrary I like it on RTW as it give us real situation which was one hundred years ago: You build best you think but future will show you if you were right. I think we all know creating design which we are proud of and than we never use that ship in any battle.
Relating to your Centaur design you give yourself right questions what is best - having 2 forward guns for belt armour, or may be for on gun on broadside or have forward singl guns. You can write your reasoning why you offer singl gun and why you would prefer sacifice of 1 broadside gun for yourself. I am quite interested.
I need to think about what I would like to build in future for Royal Navy and how each of these 3 ship fits to that plan, how I expect to use them in future and what configuration suits these targets best because they are all different designs but all really excellent. I have already some thoughts but I like to put it aside for while and do final thinking later. But be sure no matter which design I will choose all 3 designs I am speaking of areexcellent designs.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 15, 2019 8:45:07 GMT -6
I am quite suprised, you mounted secondary battery on your design for 5" caliber cruiser. What is your idea behind it? They account for about a quarter of its broadside throw weight and will help against destroyers when the ship is acting as a fleet screen. 4x4" is also a bit more throw weight than 2x5" or 1x5" + 2x4" and anyways the HI wing pair is the only set of main battery guns that I could have included to increase the broadside.
Might still have been better to drop the secondary battery and reduce the displacement to cut almost 2M off the total cost of the ship, of course.
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Mar 15, 2019 13:49:28 GMT -6
;-) Thats how I felt in the last competition, it still annoys me that I did not increase Artemis belt armour to 7 inches like you did with Phobos, when that was the one thing that bugged me most when creating Athena earlier (after accepting the 22 knots speed limit). I would have preferred two guns able to shoot to the front for my designs, like yours have. But for Cetos, I m scraping the 20 million limit and Centaur is already over the 4000 ton tonnage cliff. I would have had to sacrifice a broadside gun (which I would have done when designing for myself) or belt armour. You cannot read my mind. I have overall strategy for Royal Navy which I tried share with you (if you are not sure about that strategy I do not mind asking any time). And my construction program needs to fulfill that strategy. Frankly speaking HMS Athena was a little out of the box however it fit quite nicely to help deal with potential USA threat. It can even happen that she would be the least usefull ship in the fleet but it is life (=game) and sometimes it has nothing to do with design itself. On contrary I like it on RTW as it give us real situation which was one hundred years ago: You build best you think but future will show you if you were right. I think we all know creating design which we are proud of and than we never use that ship in any battle.
Relating to your Centaur design you give yourself right questions what is best - having 2 forward guns for belt armour, or may be for on gun on broadside or have forward singl guns. You can write your reasoning why you offer singl gun and why you would prefer sacifice of 1 broadside gun for yourself. I am quite interested.
I need to think about what I would like to build in future for Royal Navy and how each of these 3 ship fits to that plan, how I expect to use them in future and what configuration suits these targets best because they are all different designs but all really excellent. I have already some thoughts but I like to put it aside for while and do final thinking later. But be sure no matter which design I will choose all 3 designs I am speaking of areexcellent designs.
I think that I now understand your overall strategy to concentrate on the raiding prevention and distant blockade aspects. Thus calling for as many ships as possible (especially CLs for raiding prevention), while having a speed advantage, but only a slight combat advantage compared to current foreign designs. It makes a lot of sense from a historical UK perspective, where the enemy can and will choose to keep their fleet in being, and is thus great for role playing.
It is completely opposite to my standard (non-roleplay) approach, which is a min-max strategy to wipe out the enemy fleet. Might be a bit gamey, since it depends on my knowledge of the scenario generation and combat AI. I thus build as few protected and "light" armored cruisers as possible. Eg some 2100 ton CLs for raiding/blockade points and whatever to satisfy the excess foreign stations requirements, depending on my interests in this sea zone (could even be mini-Bs to entice invasions of foreign colonies in that zone). The fulcrum of my min-max wipe out strategy is a pair of ultra cruisers (battleship armour, cruiser speed, heavy armament - essentially upscaled german battlecruisers). Decisive for two or three wars and then replaced by the next generation of ultra cruisers. Athena is one variant ("legacy" compatible) of an early ultra cruiser, meant to outright decide wars until about 1908 or so. After that, she takes a strong secondary role behind the next generation of ultra cruisers. My whole strategy/tactics is centered around these ultra cruisers, and under those conditions they work very well for me. I m curious to find out how the design fares without that strategic/tactical focus. Sadly it missed the first war, where it would have been somewhat overpowered. I just hope Athena does not die to a torp in the second war ;-) and sees some action.
Since I usually go min-max (hunt or be hunted), I have little experience building mid sized, balanced CLs which are meant to slug it out with the enemy on roughly equal terms. Though I admit that min-maxing can become quite boring and roughly equal terms make for more exciting (and historical) fights. But that is the reason why I would trade a broadside gun for a frontal gun. Broadsides are mainly for slugging it out. In my usual games, I either hunt the enemy (using front mounted guns at that caliber and range, and recieving many hits into the "belt extended" armour portion) or run away.
It is a bit different when using an ultra cruiser to hunt down an enemy B. In that case I use my speed advantage to "tack" through the enemies wake, using my broadside while only getting shot at by the enemies rear turret (but I m still being mostly hit in the frontal extended belt armour, which is the reason I uparmour that so much). When the enemy B slows down after receiving enough hits into its poorly armoured rear, I slow down as well, close in at a slight angle (eg from 5 or 7 o'clock) to a few hundred yards, manually fire my frontal torpedo launcher, then do a hard turn to always stay behind him and manually fire one or two side launchers. If I want to be sure, I do a second perpendicular pass behind him to fire the torpedo launchers on my other side. It is a bit more tricky in a fleet battle, with too many DDs swarming around when chasing down an enemy B, which has fallen out of the battle line. And because such a chase needs close attention, to react fast enough to avoid getting shot at by the Bs broadside or getting torped by a DD, it distracts from the main battle line. But in my games, that procedure is responsible for more than half of the enemy B losses in the first few wars. Similar tactics when hunting down enemy CAs, once I gained the speed advantage by shooting up their rear with my frontal turret.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 15, 2019 14:05:37 GMT -6
Yes, RTW could be breached by ultra design, which are quite powerful. This AI cannot counter. However I suggest you try France/UK with small fleet and historical budget. You will be much more limit by budget.
I play not to try using knowledge of AI and her weaknesses with similar process of desgning ship as it was in hostory - slowly increasing capabilities of ships.
Just note, I play in Admiral mode as it make battles a little more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 15, 2019 14:11:03 GMT -6
Beadmore shipbuilding is awarded to laid down 2 protected cruisers of Centaur design HMS Centaur will be laid down in October 1904, HMS Chimera will be laid down in December 1904. Congratulation for winning competition.
Some ideas behind decisions. Eris is certainly good design however the main requests of design was to be cheap and fast, neither Eris was. Cetos is good ship but quite expensive to other design so it was discarded. All remaining 3 designs Centaur, Enyo and Celaeno are excellent and achieved what was requested by different methods. It was difficult to choose one from them. So main question is which of these 3 design will serve Royal Navy best. For that purpose it is needed to look into future (certainly incorrectly). Royal Navy had debate to start new construction program of battleships. It was postponed however it will happen. Such program is very expensive and will need almost all funds available meaning no funds could be spared for other types of ships. For that purpose the cruiser design 1904/4/CL need to live long. For such reason 2 knots of speed was considered more important that 11 % increase of costs and small minor differences in design. For this reason I have not chosen Celaeno even if she is most powerful of these 3 remaining designs. Finally how to choose between Centaur and Enyo? Answer laid with some foughts in Admiralty how could these ship fight foreign cruiser which has speed of 22-24 knots. Some exercises done by Admiralty shows that the advantage of speed allow use broadside more often even if chasing enemy cruiser. For such reason only 1 gun forward and aft seems sufficient. After that comparing firepower and protection between Centaur and Enyo, Centaur provides better protection and with comparable firepower and was by very small margin victorious.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 15, 2019 14:16:23 GMT -6
Another common day at AdmiraltyToday was debate between members of Navy Board about future of Royal Navy and construction program of battleships. Most mention was construction program of USN which have 7 battleships compare to our 4. Debates started how Royal Navy with limited funds could build enough battleship as USN. One of Admirals put a paper on the table. It was sheet full of numbers.
Some Admirals were irrited what does it mean. However one Admiral take the word. We should take it differently and look what information we have about others navies. Look this is available funds in certain dates we achieved from intelligence. All foreign budgets are compared to our budget at certain time. As you can see Japan and Italy has so small budget that they cannot jeopardize us. Russia has reasonable budget but commitmens in Europe and Pacific whic means they need to divade their fleet and so they are no threat either. France has a lot of colonial commitments so they are no threat to our battleline either. So it remains USA and Germany. USA mostly as her budget are incresing rapidly to ours and their worldwide commintmens are much lower which means they can focus on battleships much more than us. Germany has no worldwide commintments allowing them to have whole fleet in Europe. As you can see we need at least as much battleships as German navy however we cannot build so much battleships as USN will. This means we need to focus on quality again USN and on quantity again Kriegsmarine. How to solve to completely conflicting request? We need ships which are slightly superior to either USN or Kriegsmarine but in large numbers. So our design should be little more powerfull but cheap. There was silence after that. But another Admiral just point out. What about increase broadside of our battleship to 4 turrets, the ship would cost more but not so much compare to increasing firpower two times.
Ships overview
10/1904 – HMS Centaur laid down 10/1904 – France laid down protected cruiser of Cosmao class (4700 tons) 10/1904 – Italy laid down another battleship of Regina Elena class 11/1904 – Prime Minister decides to send a strong expeditionary force after an urpising in China 11/1904 – France laid down 2 protected cruisers of Isly class (4500 tons) 11/1904 – Italy commisioned battleship Regina Elena of her class (14200 tons, 20 knots, 4x10“ guns, 14x7“ guns, 8“ belt armour) 11/1904 – newspapers in USA are clamoring for their navy to build more armoured cruisers 12/1904 – Italy laid down Carlo Alberto class armoured cruiser (14200 tons) 2/1905 – Longitudial framing invented 2/1905 – Mechanical shell handling invented 2/1905 – HMS Deimos commissioned 2/1905 – Prime Minister approved selling ships to South America by Beardmore shipbuilding 3/1905 – Capped AP projectiles invented 3/1905 – Improved compressed air supply for torpedoes invented 3/1905 – Germany commissioned Weissenburg class battleship (16400 tons, 18 knots, 4x11“, 14x9“ guns, 10“ belt) 3/1905 – USA commissioned Montana class battleship (13500 tons, 19 knots, 4x12“, 10x7“ guns, 8.5“ belt) 3/1905 – Prime Minister has made ill-considered statement about Japan and First Naval Lord agree on it as reported by foreign journalist 4/1905 – USA laid down 2 protected cruisers of Galveston class (4300 tons) 4/1905 – USA commissioned another Montana class battleship 5/1905 – Automatic range transmitter invented 5/1905 – Naval Board – 3 centerline turrets discussion 5/1905 – USA commissioned the third Montana class battleship
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 15, 2019 15:12:38 GMT -6
DESIGN COMPETITION - MAY 1905
COMPETITION 1905/5/BB - 1 battleship - requested name of ship is Dreadnought - speed 21 knots (new battleline speed)
- firepower: at least 30 % increase over Weissenburg class (only main and secondary guns considered) - protection: at least at level of Weissenburg for belt armour protection and turret protection (detailed information from intelligence report in picture bellow)
- no torpedo tubes - vertical over horizontal protection is preferred - expected fight about 5000 yards
- 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) - all forward guns arrangement is prohibited for role-playing purposes till 1920
note: overall combination of firepower of guns over 10" caliber, protection and costs would be considered 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 18th 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) b = n * c ^ 3 n ... number of guns c ... guns caliber
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 15, 2019 17:33:38 GMT -6
Would you be willing to build ships overseas?
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Mar 15, 2019 17:46:25 GMT -6
Would you be willing to build ships overseas? Thinking about opening a subsidiary in France? Yeah, that would be nice! edit: Italy would have some benefits too, though France would be really great.
Was really worried about your design, cheaper is always a threat with that procurement office ;-) !
|
|