cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Nov 29, 2017 14:53:30 GMT -6
Humber Estuary Shipbuilding would like to introduce its entries in the 1915 design competitions. 1) the DD1915 entry is a compromise between gun armament, torpedo armament, speed and economy, so that even Chin China can build them in reasonable numbers. The only major limitation is limited range, which was deemed acceptable given the deployment practices of the Chinese navy. Displacement
| 1000 t
| Propulsion
| 32kt, standard plant
| Gun Armament
| 5× 4in QF BL Q1 guns, 4 gun broadside
| Torpedo Armament
| 18" torpedoes in 2 triple centerline launchers
| Unit cost
| 3.4 million
| Build time
| 10 months
|
2) The CC1915 entry is an evolution of the earlier CC1912 design, currently in service with the Chinese navy as the Kai Chi. A deployment alongside that ship has been considered very likely, so both the speed and main armament caliber have been retained. The principal improvements are stronger armor protection and main armament (eight guns in four turrets). Displacement
| 33 500 t
| Propulsion
| 27kt, standard plant
| Armor protection
| 13" belt, 14" turrets, 3" deck
| Armament
| 8× 15" BL guns (four twin turrets), secondary 12× 6" QF BL in single pedestal mounts
| FCS
| Mk1 Director, 2 positions
| Unit cost
| 119.6 million
| Build time
| 27 months
|
3) the BB1915 entry is more of a proof of concept, taking the basic CC1915 layout and trading speed for armor protection. Our design team was tempted to include the new 16" guns here, but that proposal was rejected in favor of retaining ammo commonality with the Kai Chi, also this sort of armament would mean either undesirable compromise in armor protection or similarly undesirable increase in displacement. Displacement
| 33 500 t
| Propulsion | 23kt, standard plant
| Armor protection
| 15,5" belt and turrets, 3" deck
| Armament
| 8× 15" BL guns (four twin turrets), secondary 14× 6" QF BL in single pedestal mounts
| FCS | Mk1 Director, 2 positions
| Unit price
| 114.5 million
| Build time
| 27 months
|
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Nov 16, 2017 17:29:41 GMT -6
Just in case the CL competition is still valid as originally formulated and the Chinese leadership doesn't decide on an alternate course of action.. HES presents its proposal for the CL1914 competition Armed with six centerline 6" guns, provision for later fitting of mine rails (or even torpedoes, some tonnage can be spared by lowering the ammo load) Central firing Speed 30kts, standard range and propulsion 2.5" belt armor, 1" deck 6500t Attachments:HES CL1914-1.40d (5.06 KB)
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Oct 19, 2017 11:26:36 GMT -6
The late 19th century battleships were odd beasts.
But my personal prize goes to the Gangut after its 1930s refit (by then it was called the October Revolution).
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Oct 12, 2017 23:16:49 GMT -6
The Humber Estuary Shipbuilding presents its proposals for the 1912 design competition: 1) The battlecruiser is designed to be used in a main battle line, should the need arise. For that purpose a heavy armament of six 15" has been provided, as well as armor comparable to contemporary battleships with an innovative armor scheme. 27kt top speed, reasonable range and reliability of the ship's engines allows it to hunt down raiders or to act as one if necessary (even though the Chin empire would likely have better uses for a capital ship). 2) The armored cruiser is designed to hunt and kill light cruisers armed with 6" guns. For that purpose a main battery of eight 8" guns was deemed satisfactory (a heavier armament would unacceptably compromise the ship in other areas). With a speed of 28kts and heavy armor for its class, this ship will be a true bully. The engine selection and fuel reserves also mean that it can be reasonably used as a raider.
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Sept 29, 2017 15:03:35 GMT -6
The Humber Estuary Shipbuilding would like to present its proposals for the 1909 battleship and cruiser competitions. The battleship proposal is well armed and armored, while also capable of reasonable 20kt speed at a modest cost of 83,7 million. The cruiser proposal is an attempt to fulfill the requirements on as low displacement as possible without sacrificing armor protection. (Sorry if those are too short, I'm down with a bad flu or something..)
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Sept 12, 2017 9:37:31 GMT -6
Setting a ship to "foreign service" fulfills the station requirements immediatelly, even if the ship itself takes some time to get there.
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Sept 12, 2017 2:48:16 GMT -6
I operate more of a rule-of-thumb principles than any per-class. - Ships in secondary duties (coastal, station) get just blank refits or cheap refits that fit their role (CD, mines..)
- Fire control - is mandatory on first line ships, but might get deferred if I wait for other technology (secondary directors, improved elevation & turrets etc) so I can do it all in a single refit.
- Gun upgrades - primary armament of first line capital ships only, and even then only when doing so would improve the quality by more than 1 point.
- Cross-deck firing - if I need BBs early and have just 3 turrets, I put the midships turrets en echelon and refit CDF later
- Other armament-related upgrades (secondary director, increased elevation) - only marginally more expensive than blank refits.
- Torpedoes - only removal of submerged tubes if I need the extra tonnage, deck mounted tubes only as a rearrangement of torpedo armament on my top DDs (like going from three singles to one centerline quad), never on other classes.
- Mines - OK on CLs, even second-line ones, no for other classes (I don't build AMCs to begin with).
- Propulsion upgrades - I haven't done this yet (the costs are rather prohibitive), but the idea of squeezing 3-4kt extra out of old BCs does have some appeal.
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Sept 6, 2017 10:24:16 GMT -6
The Humber Estuary Shipbuilding Co. presents its entries for the 1906 design competitions. First entry is for the BM1906 specification. Combining reasonable top speed with heavy armor, main armament of three turrets with twin 10" guns and a heavy secondary and tertiary armament, it employs a more conventional hull form for better seakeeping while being a rather inexpensive vessel with a total cost just short of 48 million. Second entry is for the R1906 specification, and boasts a combination of high speed, long range and very reliable engines. Armament is powerful enough to overwhelm usual patrol gunboats and destroyers, and there even is allowance for mines for sea lane denial. All of that for less than 7 million.
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Aug 24, 2017 0:50:37 GMT -6
the torpedo tubes on cnw 's DD are HIV Wha... Oh.
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Aug 23, 2017 13:21:27 GMT -6
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Aug 23, 2017 13:17:15 GMT -6
The Humber Estuary Shipbuilding Co. presents its entries in these design competitions. First entry is for the B1901A specification. A 14 500t battleship armed with four 12" guns placed in twin turrets and a sizeable secondary and tertiary batteries, with heavy armor protection and capable of 19kt top speed. Note that the ship has no torpedo armament and limited range, but neither of those should limit their utility to Chinese navy in any way. Second entry is for the B1901B specification for coastal defense ship. Armed with four 10" guns, strong secondary and tertiary batteries, heavily armored and with 19kt capability, the low price is a fair compensation for its limited seakeeping capabilities. Similarly to previous design, we at HES consider torpedoes to be a weapon that is best left to specialized ships. Third entry is for the DD1901A specification, and features a 27kt ship armed with three torpedo tubes (one of them centerline) and a pair of 4" guns.
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Aug 22, 2017 7:58:16 GMT -6
I don't want to use names of real life companies, even defunct ones (in one of the online airline management sims I used to play this used to be an offence that could get your airline deleted without prior warning, and I guess old habits die hard), so I'm going with Humber Estuary Shipbuilding (HES), based in Kingston upon Hull..
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Aug 22, 2017 1:07:13 GMT -6
Do you have a room for one Brit shipyard, even though I have yet to come up with name and backstory?
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Aug 21, 2017 4:09:58 GMT -6
A possibility would be to have players take on a more expansive set of roles. A player for each political party (or faction of some sort) to discuss or make various proposals, decide how to respond to foreign policy stuff, etc. A player for the Navy itself who can make recommendations (subject to the approval of parliament) and who actually controls the battles. Players for a few shipyards to make proposals. And yeah you could add that extra layer between naval commanders and the politicians by having a naval bureaucracy that things get passed through. Thoughts? I mean, it sounds big, but it might actually spread the load around in terms of writing (which I found to be by far the most time-intensive part of the AAR) so maybe it wouldn't be so bad. Whoa, and I thought garrisonchisholm's idea was already pushing it in terms of complexity. This is a whole new level.
|
|
cnw
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by cnw on Aug 20, 2017 1:25:43 GMT -6
OK, time to uninstall RtW, no way I'm ever topping that ending Brilliant AAR, great work.. Bravo Zulu to everyone involved. One thing I was thinking of is maybe having sealed bids although I'm not sure how that would be accomplished. Being able to see competing designs that have already been posted is an advantage (or perhaps it can be a disadvantage as well because you are forced to change your design so it is not identical to an already submitted one). Like in the game show Price is Right where the one contestant bids one more dollar than the guy that just went before him. And then the OP could post all of the designs so people can have transparency in the scoring. It does sound like more than a bit of extra work though so it might not be worth the trouble. Just throwing an idea out there. This is actually a very good idea. I don't know about everyone else, but the competing design entries definitely did influence my own design process. I generally attempted to create a superior offer to the ones already on the table, at least for my own playstyle. Had the offers been sealed, there would be more variety IMO. I'm not sure if the PMs let you send files (would be odd if it didn't, but I've seen weirder things on the various BB systems), but there is always the option of posting an encrypted archive (.zip etc - format to be specified by OP) and sending the password to OP via PM. As for the offer writeup, that could be among the technical requirements - design screenshot(s) intended for the post and the post itself in plaintext would be included in the archive, for OP it would be just a matter of copy & paste (and maybe do some formatting if necessary). I was thinking, what about removing the player one More step from building? Example. parrot realizes a new DN is needed. Parrot writes an operations report detailing the reasons for the need. The Bureau of Ships (a different player) then evaluates the need, examines the strategic situation, and issues a request for proposals to meet the need they foresee. Other players would then submit these designs to the Bureau player (the thread "owner" probably) who would then select a design and then tell the Parrot what design to build. I think this would add another level of realism, and as well open the opportunity for that fascinating discussion, "what do you MEAN you don't think we need a new dreadnought?!?" Again an interesting idea, although one I'm quite certain will slow the game down a lot.
|
|