|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 24, 2020 19:31:07 GMT -6
I was using historical information concerning how the British changed their fleet distribution around 1904 when Fischer took control as First Sealord and related this to playing Great Britain in the game. I will use GB for simplification. He examined all the geographical areas and bases where the British fleet was stationed and the ships. He then prioritized the stations based on the threats known at the time. He did predict war with Germany in October 1914 so he must have been close. Now without getting into details, here is how I have related that to the game.
In the game, GB has eleven areas where it has ships. I then examined the threats in each area to establish a priority. I am operating on the idea that "he who defends everything, defends nothing". Historically, the priority was the Mediterranean Sea with Gibraltar, Alexandria and Malta. The North Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Caribbean, Singapore and Hong Kong along with bases in Australia. There are probably more but this provides the main points. In the game, IMHO, your potential enemies are France, Germany, Russia and the US. Those are the priority one nations. Italy comes in second, Ottoman Turks next and Japan last. Now, I believe that over time, these will change.
Now with this in mind, it seems to me that a player should then place more ships, and better ships in the areas where his principle possible opponents might be strong.
In this vain, Northern Europe, the Med, the Caribbean seem to be the areas where you should prioritize the placement of ships. Next might be the Indian Ocean, Southern Africa and West Africa. The rest can be covered by some older ships.
Does this seem to be a reasonably logical assessment and possibly a useful procedure to use? Could or should it be used for all nations? If a war starts, the those priorities will have to be modified. Does this seem reasonable?
I would also add that shipbuilding should reflect these priority areas. In other words, examine the almanac and look at the ships your priority nations have built and out build them. For secondary and tertiary areas, just make them inexpensive but maybe colonial. Ideas?
|
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 25, 2020 8:03:43 GMT -6
Fisher saw that the Royal Navy needed to move from a peace-time 'show the flag' force to one that could fight. To meet the naval challenge from Germany, the Royal Navy moved its capital ships to home waters, and to do that economically it needed to transfer crews from old, slow gunboats and cruisers to new capital ships. The potential naval challenges from France, Italy, Russia and the United States were dealt with by diplomatic means, adding allies (France and Russia), transferring responsibilities (the Med to France, the Pacific to Japan) or simply by working to avoid friction (with the United States over issues in Central and South America).
I know that in my own strategic planning I prefer to keep my capital ships concentrated in one sea zone and use cruiser groups to patrol and to act as a 'trip wire' - giving a small presence in wartime that can be reinforced if and when needed. I absolutely agree that trying to be strong everywhere is a recipe for defeat in detail (and bankruptcy, but that's another topic). Diplomatic overtures are not under our control in RtW but I do try to get and keep allies when I can - or at least to keep tensions with Great Britain low. If I were playing as Great Britain, I would avoid conflict with the US after, say, 1920.
In your example above, Britain is best served (in my opinion) by a central strategy - to concentrate forces in home waters and detach forces to other sea zones only when necessary, exercising control of the seas with the minimum necessary force. A pair of battle-cruisers, or two pair at most, is usually sufficient.
In RtW, I find it can be useful to design some ships for colonial service. As an example I often design a class of light cruisers with 6" guns and then repeat it on a smaller scale with 5" guns, the former for fleet use and the latter for colonial service and/or raiding. But capital ships are thrown into battle without regard for their intended purpose, so I prefer high-quality rounded designs there.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 25, 2020 9:22:45 GMT -6
Fisher saw that the Royal Navy needed to move from a peace-time 'show the flag' force to one that could fight. To meet the naval challenge from Germany, the Royal Navy moved its capital ships to home waters, and to do that economically it needed to transfer crews from old, slow gunboats and cruisers to new capital ships. The potential naval challenges from France, Italy, Russia and the United States were dealt with by diplomatic means, adding allies (France and Russia), transferring responsibilities (the Med to France, the Pacific to Japan) or simply by working to avoid friction (with the United States over issues in Central and South America). I know that in my own strategic planning I prefer to keep my capital ships concentrated in one sea zone and use cruiser groups to patrol and to act as a 'trip wire' - giving a small presence in wartime that can be reinforced if and when needed. I absolutely agree that trying to be strong everywhere is a recipe for defeat in detail (and bankruptcy, but that's another topic). Diplomatic overtures are not under our control in RtW but I do try to get and keep allies when I can - or at least to keep tensions with Great Britain low. If I were playing as Great Britain, I would avoid conflict with the US after, say, 1920. In your example above, Britain is best served (in my opinion) by a central strategy - to concentrate forces in home waters and detach forces to other sea zones only when necessary, exercising control of the seas with the minimum necessary force. A pair of battle-cruisers, or two pair at most, is usually sufficient. In RtW, I find it can be useful to design some ships for colonial service. As an example I often design a class of light cruisers with 6" guns and then repeat it on a smaller scale with 5" guns, the former for fleet use and the latter for colonial service and/or raiding. But capital ships are thrown into battle without regard for their intended purpose, so I prefer high-quality rounded designs there. Without getting into real history too much, Fisher wanted greater economies and increases in fighting efficiencies. He wanted administrative reform, redistribution and concentration of the fleet. He brought home the ships from overseas and sold them for scrap along with ships in reserve that were ineffective. He firmly believed that Germany was the real enemy with its Naval Building programs and he wanted the fleet in home waters. He also felt that this would reduce the outlay of capital overseas to maintain the royal shipyards. All this economic savings was designed to give the Royal Navy more money to spend on newer ships. As to the game, I agree that the cruisers, built with colonial, should be deployed to the overseas areas and reinforced if necessary. Unfortunately, the game doesn't always agree with that and forces you to deploy more ships. We need to explore this concept more in depth and with other nations. BTW here is the layout of British Overseas locations.  |
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Oct 25, 2020 10:24:19 GMT -6
In your example above, Britain is best served (in my opinion) by a central strategy - to concentrate forces in home waters and detach forces to other sea zones only when necessary, exercising control of the seas with the minimum necessary force. A pair of battle-cruisers, or two pair at most, is usually sufficient. Which, funnily enough, is exactly what the Invincible- and Indefatigable-Classes were originally designed for. And then they got put in the line of battle under a man who looked at shell-handling regulations and decided they were actually 'guidelines', with spectacularly catastrophic results. That said, I did have some reasonably good results using 'colonial battlecruisers' in RTW 1, and my current GB AAR may well go down the same route (with something vaguely approaching armour). |
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 26, 2020 10:10:17 GMT -6
Without getting into real history too much, Fisher wanted greater economies and increases in fighting efficiencies. He wanted administrative reform, redistribution and concentration of the fleet. He brought home the ships from overseas and sold them for scrap along with ships in reserve that were ineffective. He firmly believed that Germany was the real enemy with its Naval Building programs and he wanted the fleet in home waters. He also felt that this would reduce the outlay of capital overseas to maintain the royal shipyards. All this economic savings was designed to give the Royal Navy more money to spend on newer ships. As to the game, I agree that the cruisers, built with colonial, should be deployed to the overseas areas and reinforced if necessary. Unfortunately, the game doesn't always agree with that and forces you to deploy more ships. We need to explore this concept more in depth and with other nations. BTW here is the layout of British Overseas locations. You've summarized the Fisher reforms better than I, so I will just say that I agree with you. Add in that he liked people who were competent rather than people who were titled or socially prominent, and that he was a proponent of innovation and technology in a service deeply mistrustful of both... I don't use the 'colonial' fitting for cruisers; too often I find myself dancing the 'colonial forces polka' and my preference is for cruisers that can be used anywhere with reasonable effectiveness. That said, I don't play Britain exactly because the once-a-decade 'colonial cruiser fruit-basket scramble' is such a headache for them and so I will defer to you. Optimally a colonial force will have to include an armored cruiser or two, just for the tonnage. Fisher also had a great fondness for 'light' battleships based on his experience with the 'Triumph' class ('Triumph' and 'Swiftsure', which look more like the American 'Tennessee' class than a battleship, but - ) so that's an option for areas with a high tonnage requirement. Should Britain build its battle-fleet for high quality and smaller numbers, aimed at one power, or build for moderate quality and larger numbers under a Two Power standard? |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 26, 2020 10:38:57 GMT -6
Without getting into real history too much, Fisher wanted greater economies and increases in fighting efficiencies. He wanted administrative reform, redistribution and concentration of the fleet. He brought home the ships from overseas and sold them for scrap along with ships in reserve that were ineffective. He firmly believed that Germany was the real enemy with its Naval Building programs and he wanted the fleet in home waters. He also felt that this would reduce the outlay of capital overseas to maintain the royal shipyards. All this economic savings was designed to give the Royal Navy more money to spend on newer ships. As to the game, I agree that the cruisers, built with colonial, should be deployed to the overseas areas and reinforced if necessary. Unfortunately, the game doesn't always agree with that and forces you to deploy more ships. We need to explore this concept more in depth and with other nations. BTW here is the layout of British Overseas locations. ..... Optimally a colonial force will have to include an armored cruiser or two, just for the tonnage. Fisher also had a great fondness for 'light' battleships based on his experience with the 'Triumph' class ('Triumph' and 'Swiftsure', which look more like the American 'Tennessee' class than a battleship, but - ) so that's an option for areas with a high tonnage requirement. Should Britain build its battle-fleet for high quality and smaller numbers, aimed at one power, or build for moderate quality and larger numbers under a Two Power standard? I would go for moderate quality and larger numbers but station the best ships near France and Germany. They are the countries you will engage most often. Northern Europe and the Med are a priority. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 26, 2020 16:02:49 GMT -6
Another issue that Fisher believe in, is the successive improvement of each ship. He was against building more than one ship of a class. I might try this.
|
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 26, 2020 18:49:10 GMT -6
I would respectfully disagree with Fisher on that. While I do think the Royal Navy took it too far by building so many early (and soon-obsolescent) Dreadnought types, there are real cost savings to be had from building more than one of a class. My personal formula is to build two of a class (unless something revolutionary comes along). Then I follow those two with two more of a modified and slightly improved class.
To balance that, I don't usually keep a ship past the 20-year mark... but these are just my personal practices and not necessarily the 'best'.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 26, 2020 18:50:52 GMT -6
Optimally a colonial force will have to include an armored cruiser or two, just for the tonnage. If you're looking at the tonnage requirements, a colonial force optimally won't include anything larger than 6,000 tons, because ships larger than 6,000 tons only count for 4,000 + [design displacement]/3 tons on station whereas ships of up to 6,000 tons count as their design displacement and the bonus from colonial service is a multiplier on the modified tonnage rather than the actual tonnage, and on top of that tonnage on station above the required amount is in some sense wasted since AF ships only count towards the tonnage requirement of the sea zone in which they are present. Thus, big ships are generally less efficient than small ships and so will optimally not be included in colonial squadrons.
Additionally, it can be more economical to provide redundancy for colonial squadrons comprised of several small ships than it is to provide a similar level of redundancy for squadrons composed of one or two larger ships, as in order to maintain station coverage despite the temporary or permanent loss of a ship you need to have another ship capable of covering the shortfall available to place on FS or move into the sea zone with the shortfall, and the bigger the ship you might lose, the more expensive it is to keep a spare or two handy. The flip side to that, of course, is that larger ships are arguably less likely to be lost in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 27, 2020 6:53:58 GMT -6
I would respectfully disagree with Fisher on that. While I do think the Royal Navy took it too far by building so many early (and soon-obsolescent) Dreadnought types, there are real cost savings to be had from building more than one of a class. My personal formula is to build two of a class (unless something revolutionary comes along). Then I follow those two with two more of a modified and slightly improved class. To balance that, I don't usually keep a ship past the 20-year mark... but these are just my personal practices and not necessarily the 'best'. I would agree, I think it is more of a cost per performance to build at least two or three ships of one design. This gives the ship designers and planners time to assess the class and make appropriate changes. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 27, 2020 6:55:11 GMT -6
Optimally a colonial force will have to include an armored cruiser or two, just for the tonnage. If you're looking at the tonnage requirements, a colonial force optimally won't include anything larger than 6,000 tons, because ships larger than 6,000 tons only count for 4,000 + [design displacement]/3 tons on station whereas ships of up to 6,000 tons count as their design displacement and the bonus from colonial service is a multiplier on the modified tonnage rather than the actual tonnage, and on top of that tonnage on station above the required amount is in some sense wasted since AF ships only count towards the tonnage requirement of the sea zone in which they are present. Thus, big ships are generally less efficient than small ships and so will optimally not be included in colonial squadrons.
Additionally, it can be more economical to provide redundancy for colonial squadrons comprised of several small ships than it is to provide a similar level of redundancy for squadrons composed of one or two larger ships, as in order to maintain station coverage despite the temporary or permanent loss of a ship you need to have another ship capable of covering the shortfall available to place on FS or move into the sea zone with the shortfall, and the bigger the ship you might lose, the more expensive it is to keep a spare or two handy. The flip side to that, of course, is that larger ships are arguably less likely to be lost in the first place.
Good information. I generally don't like to put ships larger than 10,000 tons on foreign service. However, for the British and French, it works better to have the bigger ships on duty in the Mediterranean area. |
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 27, 2020 21:59:53 GMT -6
But let us not forget that the admirals need something prestigious and fancy to ride around in as they make their port calls.  |
|
