|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 21, 2017 12:29:29 GMT -6
Some good designs coming out. Our enemies will not like to see them.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 19, 2017 22:00:43 GMT -6
Grim indeed. I wouldn't worry too much about the Caribbean. It's the home dissent that has me worried.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 19, 2017 20:47:46 GMT -6
First, our battleship design: 14,600 tons Medium Range Speed: 18 knots Armor proof against 12 inch projectiles Secondary armor proof against 10 inch projectiles Extended armor proof against 6 inch projectiles Main Battery: 4x12 inch guns - Fore and Aft Double Turrets Secondary Battery: 8x10 inch guns - Broadside Casemates Tertiary Battery: 16x6 inch guns - single mounts Cost: $1,787,000 for 29 months Second, our cruiser design: 16,900 tons Medium Range Speed: 27 knots! Armor proof against 10 inch shells Extended armor proof against 6 inch shells Main Battery: 4x10 inch guns - Fore and Aft Double Turrets Secondary Battery: 16x6 inch guns - broadside casemate Cost: $3,034,000 for 25 months This cruiser can catch and destroy any cruiser now afloat, since it is five knots faster than any other nations cruisers. It is faster than some nations destroyers! No raider will be able to evade it.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 18, 2017 19:42:37 GMT -6
The board giveth, the board taketh away. Blessed be the Naval Board...
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 18, 2017 9:19:57 GMT -6
Congrats FKS.
Also good idea to have an AMC design should we need it.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 15, 2017 22:52:03 GMT -6
And now my design feels kinda crappy. But I will stick by my guns of being the 25kt raider I liked your design. I didn't think it was even possible to get 25 knots out of 2100 tons of protected cruiser. I had to adjust my thoughts towards something less extreme since you had already taken the fastest possible design choice. It will be interesting to see which design the board picks. Yours may well be the best pure raider...but some of the other designs could conceivably survive a few moments as scout cruisers, should the navy desire them to be so. I'm interested to see what the board picks in terms of turret layout. We have a couple of different theories on display...minimalist, standard single turrets, box turret formations, and the slower firing double turrets...to say nothing of the armored vs unarmored turrets... This will be an entertaining round, and how these ships perform will be eagerly anticipated, I think.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 14, 2017 22:14:08 GMT -6
Clark Family Shipyards thanks the Naval Board for their trust. We know our cruisers will perform well for the fleet. 1900 Raider Design 2100 tons Long Range Reliable Engines Speed: 24 knots Splinter protection covering the entire hull Conning tower and turrets covered by armor sufficient to deter destroyers Main Battery: 6x5 in guns - two guns capable of being directed fore or aft. Three gun broadside. Cost: $426,000 Fast enough to evade most enemy light cruisers. Heavy enough armament to give our captains a chance of getting away by slowing the pursuit of any cruiser fast enough to keep up. We believe this design to be the most cost efficient design submitted yet.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 13, 2017 21:55:11 GMT -6
so does the admiralty review board have anything to say regarding currently submitted designs ? I too share the desire to know who won the bids and the eventual fleet composition... But patience is required... As Inigo Montoya would say, 'I hate waiting...'
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 12, 2017 23:35:04 GMT -6
I hadn't thought of subcontracting work to other nations... ...is that allowed? If so, pretty ingenious!
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 12, 2017 23:31:07 GMT -6
skwabie : Huh. And here I thought I provided enough clues with "Coastal Defense" and "no more than 13000 tonnes". I guess I should've stuck with the original "no more than 12000 tonnes" to hammer the point home - but then they might've been too weak, which is why I changed it in the first place. Oh well. I planned from the start to provide a (little bit) more in-depth overview at the end of the 1st Competition, and before the 2nd - but, again, not too much, so as not to get the same-y ships - which would, again, defeat the entire purpose of this game. (I.e. then I might as well start rolling dice to see which design wins - and where's the fun in that?) (OTOH, the number of Shipyards seems oddly compatible with the number of sides on a dice, don't you think?) Edit: after seeing your recent posts, I agree I'll have to be a bit less subtle about my (overall) requirements in the future - consider your point taken. Edit2: Oh, and Designers don't have to worry too much about dropping behind in points due to not being taken in a single Competition: if this game goes anything like my usual ones, there will be over a dozen Competitions with over three dozen required Designs total. No worries. It's all part of the bidding process. If you don't like the designs coming in from us...revise your specs and let us see if we can meet the new ones. We, of course, will want as detailed of specs as possible...but the realities of the environment (where we could conceivably end up at war with anyone) will dictate a bit of flexibility in your goal setting. With that said, I think I caught on with the coastal battleship and destroyer wording...but if we have misunderstood the cruiser specs...just let us know. The more constraints you put on us, the more 'weird' the designs will be to accommodate the specs while still remaining effective point winners. IMO, a cost spec ought to be important. That ought to cut down on the tendency to build the biggest, baddest, most expensive ship possible (which is the direction the point scoring system directs the designers toward).
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 12, 2017 23:26:39 GMT -6
Already the rival builders are getting whiny... You just need to be clairvoyant, like us. i'll not engage in pointless fights with others, do suggest u do the same. Sorry. Thought that tongue in cheek banter was ok, seeing as this is a game. Guess not.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 12, 2017 17:44:57 GMT -6
Already the rival builders are getting whiny...
You just need to be clairvoyant, like us.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 11, 2017 20:32:13 GMT -6
Revised my designs to comply with the specifications set forth.
I'd like to hear comments on the CL and DD designs...
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 11, 2017 13:30:13 GMT -6
Wiggy: & JagdFlanker: Welcome aboard, JagdFlanker. I'm going to assume you're going to take on the role of the more senior Designer until wiggy returns from his trip. @theexeter: Browsing your Designs, I ran into a comment of yours to the effect that it's impossible to move short-ranged ships between home areas. I nearly panicked, thinking my entire strategy for this game is going to go into wastebasket & set up a small game. In short: yes, it is possible for short-ranged ships to move between home areas of the map during the war - and you're quite free to Design them. Thanks for the clarification. I've been thinking of updating my designs (mostly the destroyer as I'm not perfectly happy with it)...So will take your comments into account.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 11, 2017 9:50:03 GMT -6
Wignall & Co. would like to enter a protected cruiser design for coastal, colonial and scouting duties as specified by the Admiralty charter, the Pegasus. For coastal work, her heavy 8 by 6 inch broadside will deter intruding raiders, with the future possibility of cross deck fire giving a 9 gun broadside. This will also be useful when engaging enemy fleet scouts. Although not specially equipped for colonial service, her reliable machinery and long cruising range make the Pegasus feel at home abroad. View AttachmentView AttachmentThis is a nice design. A bit light on armor, and long term speed will be an issue. Do we anticipate our CLs being used as anti-raider platforms?
|
|