|
Post by theexecuter on Dec 28, 2017 23:30:29 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.There are no particular budgetary constraints in mind for either of these projects. Unfortunately, due to the tensions with Great Britain which arose from the Russo-British alliance, British yards will not be able to participate in this competition. Save.How do people feel about 1700 GMT January 7 (first Sunday of the new year) as a submission deadline? Is it too close to the holidays? The Emperor has requested a heavy cruiser design, with battle cruiser level armor. We submit the following for consideration: 25,200 tons - oil fired Speed: 29 knots - medium range Belt armor: 10.5 inches tapering to 3 inches Deck armor: 3.5 inches tapering to 1.5 inches Guns: 12 x 10 inch guns in ABVY configuration Gun armor: 10.5 inch face, 3.5 inch roof 12 x 6 inch secondary guns in dual turrets Secondary turret armor: 3 inches High quality guns, increased range, with the best fire control in the world. Cost: 3.580M for 27 months - 96.66M total The battle cruiser request has us scratching our heads. The specification doesn't sound like a battle cruiser at all, it sounds like a budget fast battleship. We present the following for your consideration: 51,000 tons - oil fired Speed: 29 knots - medium range Belt armor: 12 inches tapering to 3 inches Deck armor: 4.5 inches tapering to 1.5 inches Guns: 8x15 inch guns in an all forward AB configuration Armor: 18 inch turret face, 6 inch turret roof Secondary guns: 18x6 inch guns in triple turrets Secondary armor: 5 inches Cost: 6.304M for 30 months - 189.83M total The armor on this ship is sufficient to proof the guns against 15inch fire. The ship has sufficient speed to dictate range in any heavy engagement. She is not heavily armored on the belt and should not be used in close. CA1924.40d (4.76 KB) BC1924v2.40d (4.93 KB)
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 29, 2017 1:44:55 GMT -6
Essentially, yes, since that's how I currently prefer to build my battlecruisers at this stage of the game, especially if my battle line is a bit on the small side, but I've had a reasonable degree of success with more lightly armored large 8-, 9-, and 10-gun designs in the past. Still, that was as the USA, and the USA is much more capable of accepting the loss of and replacing capital ships than Chin China.
For ships much over about 40,000 tons, I agree (except possibly if you're using 18" or maybe 17" guns, since those are heavy enough - especially after factoring in ammunition - that carrying many more guns than that can be a bit impractical), and at that size I'd lean towards a more traditional battlecruiser with heavy turret armor and a reasonably thick deck over a Dunkerque/Richelieu-type less one or two guns or an upscaled and upgunned Deutschland.
While I don't particularly want to encourage wild abandon with regards to economics, I don't see any particular reason to rule out a 50,000t ship on strictly economic grounds - I'd have to check to be certain, but I suspect I can more or less fill out the proposed construction program (two CAs, one battlecruiser) even using only the most expensive ships proposed thus far and still more or less be within the current budget.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Jan 1, 2018 15:10:06 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. For our part Blohm und Voss have our submissions ready. Our Heavy Cruiser proposal conforms to all particulars of the competition, with one exception, which was the choice to go with slightly larger 10" guns. It was felt that in combination with the slightly higher 30kt speed would allow it to outgun and out range potential opponents, especially when combined with the superb 10" Krupp gun available. As for our Battlecruiser submission the choice was to use a all guns forward arrangement along with 8 14" guns. This allowed for all particulars to be met along with thicker deck armor than required so as to resist 15" guns at long range, while only necessitating a slight tonnage increase over preceding Battlecruiser classes in service with your fine navy. And no, I have no clue why one picture is huge an one is tiny... freaking snipping tool
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Jan 1, 2018 15:10:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 2, 2018 4:08:11 GMT -6
If possible, aeson, can you share a cost expectation for future capital ship designs? If not, that's ok too. I'll try, but I didn't really have a target cost in mind for this most recent design competition. I probably should have had one, considering what I wanted to do, but I didn't. Also, for whatever it's worth, my estimate was that a pair of any of the other proposals submitted would be around 78-89% complete if I took no economizing measures, 83-95% complete if I mothballed the predreadnoughts and Tzu I, or 85-97% complete if I scrapped the predreadnoughts and Tzu I by the time I ran out of funds. If babylon's proposal had been more nearly as expensive as the other proposals or if my goal had been to add to the battle line rather than replace the existing battle line, I don't think that cost would have been as significant a factor in my decision for this competition and I probably still would have laid down a pair of ships to one of the proposals submitted, but babylon's proposal is cheap enough that my estimate was that I could build a pair of them and have some small amount of money left over even without taking economizing measures, and my estimate for the case where I scrapped the predreadnoughts and Tzu I was that I could build a pair of them and have more or less enough money left over to rebuild Kwang-Chou-Wan or buy a fifth of my desired third new battleship. If babylon's submission had been closer in cost to the rest of the field, then your proposal would not have lost due to its cost, which isn't actually all that much less affordable than that of the British submissions (I estimated at the time that I'd be able to get about 80% completion on two battleships built to your, 78% completion on a pair built to dorn's, 86% completion on a pair built to cnw's, or 89% completion on a pair built to boomboomf22's proposals without taking any economizing measures) despite costing 10-20 million more in total - Britain's efficient shipbuilding industry isn't entirely advantageous when it comes to making things fit into the budget, because it reduces construction time but not total cost. Your submission probably would have lost on the grounds of everyone else having better armor, which unfortunately you weren't really going to be able to avoid since Germany, France, and Great Britain all have AoN armor. I can view Britain's efficient shipbuilding industry as advantage. As what is most important is total cost and that is the same. So there is always 2 options: a) to have ship several months earlier if you have enought spare cash ==> advantage b) the need to laid down ship several months later to achieve commision in same time as without this trait. In this case there is chance of technological advancement to build ship even cheaper. ==> advantage And there is hidden benefit - random events. There are more events to slow down construction thant faster the construction so building ship quicker decrease chance of negative event. And positive event in case of shorten construction time in case more ship in class were built is usefull mainly for destroyers and minesweepers.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 2, 2018 14:02:03 GMT -6
I can view Britain's efficient shipbuilding industry as advantage. As what is most important is total cost and that is the same. So there is always 2 options: a) to have ship several months earlier if you have enought spare cash ==> advantage b) the need to laid down ship several months later to achieve commision in same time as without this trait. In this case there is chance of technological advancement to build ship even cheaper. ==> advantage And there is hidden benefit - random events. There are more events to slow down construction thant faster the construction so building ship quicker decrease chance of negative event. And positive event in case of shorten construction time in case more ship in class were built is usefull mainly for destroyers and minesweepers. 10% shorter construction time at the same total cost = 11% higher monthly construction cost per unit = fewer ships built in parallel, unless you have enough in the reserves to cover the added cost. Series production gets around that somewhat, but since the construction times aren't that much shorter you're probably going to want to lay down a new class by the time enough funding becomes available to get the last ship or two to match the somewhat larger production runs of the other powers, which leads to the next issue: Shorter construction times can mean more classes, which in turn means more design fees to pay. Also, while there are some techs (most notably guns) where a ship designed with them is going to be clearly superior to a ship designed without them, most individual techs are of relatively marginal benefit. Regarding construction events: Construction slowdown/speed up events are of only marginal concern, in my opinion, especially since the slowdown/speed up events do not appear to affect the total cost of the ship - you seem not to be billed the construction cost of the ship when work is delayed, and you appear to be billed for the extra month's work when work goes unexpectedly quickly. On an economic basis, Britain's efficient shipbuilding industry is not clearly advantageous.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 3, 2018 8:11:02 GMT -6
I can view Britain's efficient shipbuilding industry as advantage. As what is most important is total cost and that is the same. So there is always 2 options: a) to have ship several months earlier if you have enought spare cash ==> advantage b) the need to laid down ship several months later to achieve commision in same time as without this trait. In this case there is chance of technological advancement to build ship even cheaper. ==> advantage And there is hidden benefit - random events. There are more events to slow down construction thant faster the construction so building ship quicker decrease chance of negative event. And positive event in case of shorten construction time in case more ship in class were built is usefull mainly for destroyers and minesweepers. 10% shorter construction time at the same total cost = 11% higher monthly construction cost per unit = fewer ships built in parallel, unless you have enough in the reserves to cover the added cost. Series production gets around that somewhat, but since the construction times aren't that much shorter you're probably going to want to lay down a new class by the time enough funding becomes available to get the last ship or two to match the somewhat larger production runs of the other powers, which leads to the next issue: Shorter construction times can mean more classes, which in turn means more design fees to pay. Also, while there are some techs (most notably guns) where a ship designed with them is going to be clearly superior to a ship designed without them, most individual techs are of relatively marginal benefit. Regarding construction events: Construction slowdown/speed up events are of only marginal concern, in my opinion, especially since the slowdown/speed up events do not appear to affect the total cost of the ship - you seem not to be billed the construction cost of the ship when work is delayed, and you appear to be billed for the extra month's work when work goes unexpectedly quickly. On an economic basis, Britain's efficient shipbuilding industry is not clearly advantageous. fewer ships built in parallel, unless you have enough in the reserves to cover the added cost.
Yes, this is exactly what I have in mind - the need of reserves. If you have some reserve, you could do better (meaning more options that can suit you better) with Britain trait. If you do not have you are right the spending more money on design in the effect if you do not manage it correctly. I will use some hypothetic example, variant A is local, variant B is UK trait. Example 1You have monthly net income of 10 M, cash 1 M to cover design costs of cruiser for 20 M, which is built in local shipyard in 20 months, 18 months in UK. Local monthly costs: 1M UK monthly costs: 1.11 M Variant A: 10 ships build after 20 months Variant B: possibility a) 9 ships build after 18 months, so you have 1 ship less, 2 months early, but 2 months of income decreased by maintenance costs of the ships. possibility b) wait 2 months to get 20 M than build 10 ships 10 ships built after 20 months (same as variant A) with possibility if some technology breakdown to decrease costs or improve ships
Conclusion: Variant B is clearly better as you cannot end worse (Bb vs. A) and you have even more options and possibilities (variant Ba or technology breakdown in variant Bb)
Example 2You have monthly net income of 10 M, cash 1 M to cover design costs of cruiser for 20 M and 20 M reserve cash. Ship which is built in local shipyard in 20 months, 18 months in UK. You want 10 ships. Local monthly costs: 1M UK monthly costs: 1.11 M
Variant A: After 20 months you have 10 ships and 20 M reserve cash
Variant B a) After 18 months you have 10 ships and no reserve cash (10 ship ordered in day 1) b) After 20 months you have 10 ships and 20 M reserve cash (10 ships ordered with 2 month delay) with possibility to take advantage of technology if it happens.
Conclusion: Again I can see Variant B superior as you either end with the same (A vs. Bb) or you have the ships 2 month earlier and for it you only spent 2 monthly maintenance costs.
So in case of peace and you are not in hurry, you can end same with possibility to have cheaper or better design (you start construction 2 months later so there is chance of better technology) but in case of war you can gladly spent maintenance costs earlier to have ships combat ready earlier. And this I can see as advantage in all situation - possibility of choice with possibility of small benefits.
Note: I always using build up of reserve money and than use this money on my design in increased effectivity. The AI sometimes builds ships in class which the first one started construction even 3 years ago. This is quite ineffective as 5 % of design costs will be almost similar to technology savings and usually you can build much better design after 3 years, especially at time when you do not have better guns or more centerline turrets or triple turrets or AoN armor or better fire control. By using the reserve money your effectivity go even further as your first ship is as up to date as possible and your last ships is commissioned as early as possible.Feel free to comment if you think I cannot see something or if you thoughts were in different way.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 3, 2018 12:55:54 GMT -6
dorn : What you're missing is that in this scenario, I am not the one designing the ships. That means I'm not going to go and redo a design in two or three turns to take advantage of new technologies, which in turn means that I'm not going to gain full - or in some cases any - benefit from whatever techs may have been developed in that period. Declining to take advantage of the shorter construction time in exchange for not gaining anything in terms of unit quality means tossing out the one advantage that Efficient Shipbuilding Industry really has in this scenario, which is that I get some new ships faster than I would otherwise. Also, in most cases I've already waited to build up reserve funds to help pay for the construction programs, and when I haven't it's usually because I think I need the ships too quickly to wait. Waiting longer isn't especially attractive, particularly since the way this is set up prevents me from taking full advantage of the potential benefits.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 3, 2018 13:38:01 GMT -6
dorn : What you're missing is that in this scenario, I am not the one designing the ships. That means I'm not going to go and redo a design in two or three turns to take advantage of new technologies, which in turn means that I'm not going to gain full - or in some cases any - benefit from whatever techs may have been developed in that period. Declining to take advantage of the shorter construction time in exchange for not gaining anything in terms of unit quality means tossing out the one advantage that Efficient Shipbuilding Industry really has in this scenario, which is that I get some new ships faster than I would otherwise. Also, in most cases I've already waited to build up reserve funds to help pay for the construction programs, and when I haven't it's usually because I think I need the ships too quickly to wait. Waiting longer isn't especially attractive, particularly since the way this is set up prevents me from taking full advantage of the potential benefits. You are completely right that in this scenario its completely different. My apologize forgetting this.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jan 7, 2018 1:27:15 GMT -6
MHNA is proud to present its proposal for the CA1924 project. It features an 8" belt and 3" deck, with 10" turret face armor and 3.5" turret tops. The armament consists of 8 10" quality 1 guns in 2 quadruple turrets in an AB configuration, twenty-four 6" secondaries in splinter-protected twin turrets, and three above water torpedoes on each broadside, as well as bow and stern tubes underwater. The ship is capable of 30 knots, with speed-optimized engines, and carries enough fuel to be easily redeployable in wartime (medium range). Attachments:
MHNA CA1924.40d (5.03 KB)
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jan 7, 2018 2:27:51 GMT -6
MHNA's proposal for BC1924 features 6 15" Q0 guns with a 16" belt and 5" deck, affording a broad immunity zone against its own fire from just outside 12000 yd to almost 25000 yd. The turrets are armored with 18" faces and 7" tops, affording complete protection from turret penetrations at all ranges likely to be seen in daytime action. A suite of 24 6" Q1 director-controlled guns provides a formidable deterrent to enemy destroyers. The main battery, mounted in two triple turrets in an AB configuration, has ample ammunition storage of 140 rounds per gun. The ship has four above water torpedoes on each broadside, with fore and aft underwater tubes. To save on machinery costs, and as the existing battlecruiser fleet has the same speed, we opted for the low end of the specified speed range, 27 knots. Attachments:
MHNA BC1924.40d (5.04 KB)
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 7, 2018 11:36:59 GMT -6
cv10 , babylon218, matlef , parrot : Would you like more time to get in a submission for the current design competition, or will you be passing on this one?
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Jan 7, 2018 11:59:13 GMT -6
cv10 , babylon218 , matlef , parrot : Would you like more time to get in a submission for the current design competition, or will you be passing on this one? I'll be passing
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Jan 8, 2018 4:14:54 GMT -6
cv10 , babylon218 , matlef , parrot : Would you like more time to get in a submission for the current design competition, or will you be passing on this one? Sorry, I've been bogged down with Uni work these past few weeks. I do have a couple of designs ready though, I just need a chance to post them: give me a few hours.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 8, 2018 10:26:42 GMT -6
Sorry, I've been bogged down with Uni work these past few weeks. I do have a couple of designs ready though, I just need a chance to post them: give me a few hours. Sure, no problem.
|
|