cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on May 29, 2019 11:39:55 GMT -6
Mailed twice - first time on 23rd via the Win 10 mail.. when I didn't get any message by 27th evening, I thought it a fluke of the mail client so I sent another message manually..
Maybe the paypal payment wasn't processed properly?
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on May 1, 2018 0:07:05 GMT -6
Unless cv10 decides he wants to use French yards, there's no need for edits..
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Apr 30, 2018 22:56:14 GMT -6
Unfortunately, tensions are high enough with Britain.. Not again.. The current building project (or projects, depending on what class Fong Yang is) are not threatened, I hope?
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Apr 27, 2018 15:11:08 GMT -6
Humber Estuary Shipbuilding Co. hasn't delivered a warship or even proposed a design to Chinese Navy since the Chao Yung battlecruiser of 1918.. Now, after more than two decades, we present our design proposal for the 1941 battlecruiser competition, meant to replace the venerable Kai Chi: While slow by current battlecruiser standards at 27 knots, it is heavily armed with six 17" guns in two triple turrets and an impressive array of 5" dual purpose secondary guns, and more importantly its protection puts all currently deployed capital ships to shame, boasting considerable immune zone against its own armament. Attachments:HES BC1941.40d (4.93 KB)
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Apr 25, 2018 7:52:34 GMT -6
My take on raiding:
Type 1 - only in home waters, when I don't have other uses for them, the goal here is to trigger a fight, any actual commerce raiding is just a bonus. For me, it's generally a dumping ground for older battlecruisers and predread CAs, while the modern stuff gets into the enemy's face elsewhere.
Type 2 + 3 - nah, don't do that.
Type 4 - my preferred method with dedicated raiding cruisers, although my preferred design and usage is firmly on the cheesy side and doesn't result in enjoyable battles.
Basically - 2100t, reliable + long range, minimum armor (1" narrow belt), armament just a bunch of 4" (4-7 pieces with about 120-150rpm) and later maybe a dozen mines, nothing else. The remaining tonnage is used to squeeze as much speed out of the ship as possible (25-26kts at game start, once you get turbines you can hit 30+kts). Deployment-wise a couple to each zone with enemy posessions, couple more to their home zones, and a couple to Northern Europe. In case of interception don't engage at all, just run, you should have enough of a speed advantage to get away.
The basic design concept stays relevant until 1200-1500t DDs with director and 5" guns start to appear, and for individual ship classes you can use the older ones in the less exposed zones.
Type 5 - I don't build AMCs regularly, just a handful if I need a couple of raiders right now and don't have anything ready or in the pipeline. They make sense as an investment (you get some of the money you paid for them back once they're sold), my issue is that (at least for my minimal designs) intercepted AMC equals dead AMC.
Submarines - I don't use them all that much, they're harder to control (can't set patrol zones, plus the odd events) and attrition is an issue that I don't have to deal with when using surface raiders. I might have a handful to complement my surface raiders, and later I tend to build some minelaying subs.
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Apr 16, 2018 6:50:12 GMT -6
I haven't submitted anything since 1920 or so because of the China-UK tensions (and later war, obviously), but I'm still lurking around..
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Jan 16, 2018 7:08:38 GMT -6
HES won't be entering competitions as long as a state of war exists between China and Great Britain.
His Majesty's government tends to consider providing technical assistance in such causes to be treason.
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Jan 12, 2018 4:46:42 GMT -6
Hello everyone, I recently played Hearts of Iron 3, where you have the ability to designate a ship as a "Pride of the Fleet". While mostly cosmetic in HoI3 (apart from maybe a slight crew XP gain bonus), I think it could turn into an interesting extra immersion mechanic in RtW2.. Here is my idea on how it could work: What it does
- The "Pride" status automatically grants the ship the best crew quality possible given the circumstances (training, overal readiness, unrest..), also quality recovery should be faster.
- Losing the "Pride" should incur a hefty (-5 or so) Prestige penalty.. on the other hand winning a battle where it made a significant contribution (damaged / sunk any enemy CAs or capital ships) will incur an extra bonus (+1/+2) on top of the usual win bonuses
- The "Pride" can't be switched to reserve duty or mothballed for as long as it has that status
- If a ship that held a "Pride" status at any point in its career is scrapped, the odds of getting the museum ship offer are vastly increased.
How a ship is selected
- You're the one selecting the ship, with some caveats and limitations
- It's possible to not have a ship selected, but you might get prompted by your head of state or navy director (designate a ship within X turns for budget/prestige gain, or ignore for nothing/budget cut) - this might depend on your government and if you have bombastic head of state - a liberal democracy might be OK with not having a "Pride", the Kaiser won't.. and he won't react well to a negative answer to that either)
- You can strip a ship of its "Pride" status without naming a substitute at prestige cost (-1), or by naming another ship as a "Pride" (which might get you a prestige bonus depending on the relative quality of the ships in question)
- The "Pride" status should be something that stays with a ship for quite some time - too frequent changes ought to be discouraged (either a prestige loss, or outright 12-30 month cooldown on the change) outside of the "Pride" being lost or special events
The fine print of ship selection and other mechanics
- In order to be eligible, a ship has to be one of the capital classes (B/BB/BC/CVs), if you don't have one of these a large CA (10000t or more) is acceptable too
- Game gives the ships a point score according to size, combat record, armament, age and class, in that rough order. There should be some nonlinearity to the values (for example very little difference between a ship that's brand new and one that's a decade old, but a 25 year old ship isn't seen as a viable pick unless it had a major refit recently)
- If you pick a ship among the available ones that has at least 75-80% of the "top pick" score, you get a prestige bonus, on the other hand a clearly inadequate choice (bottom 20-25%) might incur a penalty and a request from your head of state to change the state of affairs might follow soon.
- If a satisfactory choice is made, that ship gets about 2-3 years of immunity from further "Pride" events. After that, if better ships have been introduced, you might get prodded to change it, depending on your government, head of state and relative quality of your Pride in relation to the new generation. A possible exception might be if your original "Pride" was a clearly inferior ship or you picked a CA originally and then obtained actual capital ships, in which case the prod to change might be immediate.
- the "Pride" should be kept in top condition. Expect your leadership to complain if it gets too worn out (the "o" status) or has very outdated fire control systems (2-3 levels behind) and demand a swift correction.
Also another thing, not related to the above..
When we create (or refit) ships, could we perhaps specify our desired use for the ship in form of a checkbox with class relevant picks? Then when picking ships for battle they'd be picked (or not) and used according to that desired use, if you have enough ships to choose from in the area (If you don't, then you use whatever's available)
So for example for cruisers it'd be: - Solo action (might need a better name, what I had in mind was offensive purpose like convoy attack or shore bombardment - either solo or as a core of small flotilla of minor ships)
- Scouting
- Raiding
- Fleet screening
- Commerce protection (ships for convoy screening are picked primarily from this category, also intercepts raiders)
- Colonial duties
etc..
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Jan 10, 2018 7:46:41 GMT -6
For me, the 2100t superlights are semi-disposable raiders and not much more, actual fleet duties are done by my 2nd class cruisers, which early on are usually 7-8000t protected CAs with uniform 7" and 4-5" secondary.
That said, the very first class of such ships tends to be less speed-oriented than the subsequent ones (usually 24kt speed and 4" main battery with 7-9 guns, decent armor in a protected cruiser arrangement) and are capable of fulfilling the task.
The later (1905 or so onwards) are pure raiding cheese - long range, reliability, notional armor (something like 1" narrow belt, nothing else), handful of 4" guns (like 4-6.. I'm not sure about the extent to which a ship's actual armament matters in the raiding duty), no fire control, maybe some 10-20t allowance for mines, and the rest goes to engines - you can get 29kt cruiser by 1904-5 that will stay relevant as surface raider until at least late teens, at the cost of being completely useless for anything else. But these ships are cheap and disposable, who cares.
Their era does come to an abrupt end by the time 1200+t DDs with 5" guns and directors start to appear, but by that time I generally replace them *and* the 2nd class protected CAs by actual light cruisers.
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Dec 23, 2017 14:00:25 GMT -6
Design Competition 10, Part 1: CA1924
The Imperial Chinese Navy would like to see proposals for a pair of armored cruisers to replace the Ning Hai and Nan Chen, currently in mothballs and badly obsolete. A degree of tactical compatibility with Nan Jui is desired so the Navy feels that a design speed of 29 or 30 knots is appropriate, but is willing to consider faster designs. It is desired that the ship have a main battery equivalent to nine 9" guns, and have at least an 8" belt and 2" deck, with correspondingly thick turret face and top armor. A secondary battery of at least 12 guns of 4", 5", or 6" caliber is also desired. Design Competition 10, Part 2: BC1924
The Imperial Chinese Navy would additionally like to increase the size of its battlecruiser force, Kai Chi having performed most satisfactorily in the recent Sino-Japanese War and the modernization of the battle line having been completed. We would prefer a battlecruiser armored to resist 15" gunfire and carrying 6 or 7 guns of at least 14" caliber in two turrets, but more traditional battlecruiser designs will be considered acceptable if they have a 4" deck and at least 16" turret face and 5" turret top armor. A design speed of 27 or 28 knots is desired, as is a secondary battery of at least 16 4", 5", or 6" guns. If you propose a ship with 6 or 7 guns in two turrets, I want the main battery ammunition stowage to be at least 130 rounds per gun for 14" or at least 120 rounds per gun for heavier guns. Our Chinese friends have no reason to worry, HES is willing to provide top notch designs.. *Record needle scratch*Oh.
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Dec 16, 2017 0:14:26 GMT -6
Humber Estuary Shipbuilding would like to present its proposal for the 1918 Battleship design competition. Designed with longetivity in mind, this 36 000 tonne design is armed with 16" guns (having better penetration than the 15"s, better upgrade potential and also being lighter for comparable salvo weight - which would require at least ten of the smaller guns) in four twin turrets (to ensure main battery redundancy in case of disabled turrets). Speed is modest 23 knots, with reduced fuel storage which we hope would be an acceptable compromise (we have indications that the Chinese navy wants to keep these ships close to their home waters). Armor protection far surpasses any recent or projected capital ships with 15,5" belt, 4" deck and 16" turret face armor, with a large immunity zone against its own armament. [Okay, 15" guns abandoned despite my initial wishes.. when you can have 8×16", there's no reason to return to 15", and the 16"s will - with possible refit to +1 quality - remain viable until the game ends.. I had to go with short range, otherwise we'd be either stuck with 3.5" deck, or a 38tt-ish design, neither of which appeal to me.
Regarding the battleship situation - with Tzu-I you have two viable courses of action, either scrap her or keep her in mothballs as a tonnage reserve, anything else is a waste of resources. Then again, if you're after tonnage reserve in case of a blockade or invasion support, you can very well keep both older pre-Dreadnoughts in mothballs, they'd do the same job far cheaper]Attachments:HES BB1918-1.40d (4.99 KB)
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Dec 10, 2017 1:19:35 GMT -6
A couple of thoughts: Wow, Kai Chi was definitely money well spent. Lets hope Chao Yung is at least half as useful. Also pretty heavy turnaround on the Fei Yuns, for something that was supposed to be a two-ship class (not that HES is complaining, hehe ).. Perhaps next time I submit a CL design I'll add a wartime cutdown variant to keep fleet numbers up if things go south.. Regarding the Tzu I - Just two turrets with 13/-2 triples limit the upgrade potential too much to be worthwhile. If it had one more, I'd say refit to 15-16" guns and call it a day. Here, I'm pretty sure any upgrade isn't going to be worth the effort. If Fred W is looking here, could we (in some future version) have a preview of the ships we're about to take in a peace deal? The 12-gun main armament is an absolute requirement, or can it be reduced for higher caliber guns? I kinda have a preference for the 15" by now, and I think 8-9 would be more than sufficient. Edit: As for which of the predreads should be replaced, I'd go with Chen Yuen.
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Dec 5, 2017 3:35:47 GMT -6
Yay for HES-built BC force..
Regarding the DD names issue - if you intend to keep the older DDs for second line duties, why not rename these along the letter-number scheme or something like that and use the thus freed proper names for the new builds?
As for the schedule, I'll adapt to either option.
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Nov 30, 2017 15:36:30 GMT -6
As one of the British yards, the lack of superfiring B turret doesn't do my designs any favors either
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Nov 29, 2017 14:55:44 GMT -6
|
|