The Awkward Year of 1912 in Jacky Fisher’s Paradise
Mar 2, 2019 9:01:19 GMT -6
garrisonchisholm likes this
Post by generalvikus on Mar 2, 2019 9:01:19 GMT -6
My latest USA game has turned out to be a really interesting one. The date, as far as I can remember, is August 1912, and I have just ended a successful war with Russia. The settings are very large fleet, historical resources, and manual build of legacy fleet. I don’t have access to the computer in question at present, but I will provide more exact details as soon as I do.
Important developments early in the game strongly influenced my strategy going into the dreadnought age. I had initially intended to pursue a strategy of skimping on the battle fleet in order to invest heavily in cruisers in the early game, after which I would switch to a historical BB - centric US strategy which would soon neutralise any gains made by my rivals in the pre-dreadnought age. In the early years, the most important enemies quickly proved to be France and Germany, whose relatively modest battle fleets seemed to accommodate my strategy. However, this quickly changed when, during my first war with Germany, which had immediately followed my first war with France, tensions which had never quite settled down flared up again, and France looked ready to re-commence hostilities on the German side. Forced to contemplate war with both powers and unwilling to back down, I felt compelled to expand a planned class of two modestly-sized semi-dreadnoughts to four ships in order to at least equal the combined strength of the projected French and German battle fleets. When the brief scare ended as the inconclusive war with Germany ended shortly before the second war with France began, the four ships of the California class were just about too far along for me to consider cancelling any of them.
For the moment, my prospective 14 strong battle line put me in a commanding position against any potential enemy other than Britain - and the Californias arrived in the Carribean just in time to intimidate a hitherto uncharacteristically combative French navy into withdrawal and then surrender, ending my third inconclusive war of the game so far. With the battleship question solved for the moment beyond reasonable doubt I was able to return to my pre-planned focus on cruisers. However, the necessity of doing so, underlined especially by a resurgent Germany's extensive CA construction program – among other things – meant that by the time I was ready to return to pre-dreadnought construction, it was too late to be considered viable. As such, while I maintained a comfortable quantitative lead over all rival battle fleets except for the British at the end of the pre-dreadnought era, the latest and most advanced crop of semi-dreadnoughts, incrementally larger and more powerful than the Californias, had gone unanswered, and this had allowed Britain in particular to solidify its dominant position.
Since I had been determined to wait for four centreline turrets before laying down my first dreadnoughts, I did not enter the race early, and thus the combination of no late pre-dreadnoughts and no early dreadnoughts had opened up the qualitative battleship gap, which I now felt compelled to close. As such, when I saw that Britain’s initial crop of dreadnoughts was almost exclusively comprised of BCs, I felt that the best course of action was to focus on BBs, thus providing both an asymmetrical counter to the British and a strong symmetrical answer to the battleship gap. Two BBs were therefore accompanied by only a single BC in the first year of construction.
The Royal Navy’s first battle cruisers turned out to be rather peculiar to say the least - 25 knots, 6 inches of armour, and 8x 14 inch guns with one turret forwards, one aft, and one located midships on either side. This class of about four ships was followed up by four BBs – which, as it turned out, were almost exactly identical, except for the fact that they got a 'battleship' stamp put on them because they managed to be a single knot slower at 24 knots. I did not, however, find that out until some time after their completion, since I had assumed them to be standard 21 knot versions of the battlecruiser design. Meanwhile, every other navy was investing almost exclusively in battlecruisers, and so the first year of construction was the only year in which BBs dominated my own construction queue.
All of these factors put together meant that by the time it became clear to me that the British BBs were in fact BCs in all but name, and therefore that 24 - 25 knots was now effectively the new 'line speed' for every foreign naval power, I was not so well placed as I might have been, and I have spent most of my time and effort in the intervening years attempting to catch up.
On the bright side, both my initial 2 BBs and 1 BC and all subsequent designs had, with their 4 centreline 12 inch (and then - sooner than expected - 13 inch) guns, a comfortable qualitative advantage over their foreign contemporaries, which allowed me to make up the numbers with ships of a relatively modest displacement for a relatively reasonable cost. This put me in a fairly comfortable position by about the turn of the decade. An alliance with the British allowed me to make full use of the new fleet in a series of major actions in the Baltic and Northeast Asia against the decidedly inferior Russians.
The next major shock to the system came in about 1910 from, of all people, the Italians. News of a unique battlecruiser under construction with all of twelve 14 inch guns mounted in triple turrets on the centreline represented a quantum leap over all previous domestic and foreign designs – and at 32,500 tons, it was much bigger than any historical contemporary. Far more worryingly, the Japanese were able to respond almost immediately with no fewer than three 32,500 ton vessels of presumably a similar design, which instantly transformed them from a near non-entity into a first – rate power, co-equal to Germany as my nearest peer competitor. At that time, my dock limit was just 32,000 tons.
My response was the first class of dreadnoughts I had yet laid down which felt decidedly inadequate – as far as I can remember, eight 13 inch guns with 11 or 12 inches on the belt and turrets at 27 knots was the best could be done – though it weighed in at only 29,000 tons, there wasn’t enough room for an extra turret with adequate armour, and I didn’t yet have reliable training and elevation gear for triple turrets.
My latest design – a heavier version with 13 inches on the belt – represents what I think is a dead end in the battlecruiser design philosophy which has got me this far, which has been to put as many guns as is reasonable into a package that is well armoured enough to resist them at combat ranges. My technological limitations are being exacerbated by the variety and increasing potency of foreign designs. The newest German vessels have upgraded to a 27 knot speed; the Japanese and Italians are using 14 inch guns which may well be better than my own, and worst of all, the British are now advertising 15 inch guns which I can only presume are equipped on their newest ships under construction. I can design a ship which can compensate for the relative weakness of my Q0 13 inch guns by adding more of them. I can design a BC with stupidly heavy armour to resist 14 inch, if not 15 inch shellfire at the range at which my own guns are effective. I can design a BC which can catch up to the German ships at 27 knots. However, it is increasingly clear to me that I cannot design a ship which can do all of these things at once.
The answer, as far as I can see it, is obvious: 1912 was the year in which the Queen Elizabeth was laid down, and a Queen Elizabeth – especially as originally designed at 25 knots – would be the perfect solution. Fast enough to keep up with all existing BCs and contend with all new ones, able to fight at range, easily penetrating their armour while its own would provide plentiful protection. The British seem to have the same idea, as they reportedly have access to 15 inch guns which I can only presume their latest BCs will use.
If we consider a hypothetical ‘USS Ideal’ I would want to combine those 15 inch guns with three more decisive 1912 innovations – the AoN armour and triple turrets of Nevada, and the economical oil firing engines of both Nevada and Queen Elizabeth.
The awkward thing about 1912 is that, as of yet, I have achieved none of these innovations, and I cannot know when I will have any one of them. Therefore, any new class laid down at this time may be rendered mostly obsolete by one of them or totally obsolete by all of them long before it is completed, and yet I do not feel secure enough to simply sit and wait. Luckily, the ‘popular subscription for a battleship’ event, which conveniently showed up when I was already building enough to satisfy the build conditions, has left me with a reserve of over 50 million, which will at least allow me to make good use of the next breakthrough.
In the meantime, I am wondering how exactly to best adapt to this strange, battlecruiser – centric world moving forward, and what exactly I am supposed to do with the dead end I have reached in battlecruiser design. Whatever I do, it seems clear to me that it is necessary to break with the iterative process which I have followed up to this point, but as of yet I have not found a good answer.
In order to find an answer, I think I have to solve a few important questions:
1. How should I expect that future wars might play out?
2. How should my force structure reflect these expectations?
3. To what extent can I afford to wait for new technological breakthroughs at the expense of immediate construction?
4. How much effort should I put into these key breakthroughs, and how should they be prioritised, if at all?
I’ll attempt to detail my thoughts on these questions below.
Question 1: How should I expect that future wars might play out?
The recent war with Russia demonstrated a healthy mix of fleet engagements and cruiser engagements. However, this was likely the result of my alliance with the UK allowing me to blockade the Russians in their home region, which cannot be relied upon in the future. If future wars are fought only in regions where I have bases, then past experience gives me reason to be much more pessimistic about the potential for fleet engagements.
My three previous wars with France and Germany were inconclusive because, despite some sporadic raids by assorted battleship and CA forces against both the East and the West coast, neither enemy managed to concentrate their battle fleet well enough to fight fleet engagements except on rare occasions, even though both France and Germany had the base capacity to do so in Southeast Asia. Furthermore, despite my almost continuous superiority in both the Caribbean and Southeast Asian theatres, over the course of three wars over several years I only launched a single invasion of an enemy possession.
Two hypothetical wars are the exception to this rule: war with Britain, who can be expected to blockade me, and war with Japan, who I can blockade.
If current trends continue, then fleet battles may become even rarer once the pre-dreadnoughts are scrapped, since there won’t be enough battleships to fight meaningful engagements.
Considering this, the battlecruiser – dominated world may be very favourable to the USA, which cannot rely on the luxury of being able to blockade all its enemies.
Question 2: How should my force structure reflect these expectations?
There are two distinct options that I can see:
1. Continue to focus entirely on the battlecruiser force in order to compete symmetrically as best as possible with all other powers. Expect to fight wars in the future primarily by cruiser actions and cruiser battles. In a hypothetical war with Britain, attempt to wear down the less well armoured enemy BC force, and then fight a decisive battle bringing my 14 pre-dreadnoughts to bear along with all my remaining BCs against the remaining enemy BCs and 30 pre – dreadnoughts, thus breaking the enemy blockade.
2. Maintain a BC force strong enough to overmatch the cruiser and battlecruiser forces of most nations, but plan to fight decisive fleet battles against Britain, which will blockade me, and Japan, which I can blockade. Focus on building BBs of 21 – 24 knots to compete asymmetrically with Britain, which has the most BCs and a considerable lead on me, and Japan, which has the best BCs, and nearly as many modern BCs in the works as I have at present.
Regardless of which option is chosen, future construction and force structure will have to be largely influenced by what I decide to do with my older ships in the coming years.
Protected / Light Cruisers: Currently I maintain an approximately 20 cruiser force of mostly small, slow, but heavily armed and armoured cruisers. At 19 – 22 knots, these ships are no more than 2 knots slower than the protected cruisers of other nations, none of which have been scrapped so far. Having sacrificed speed, they are designed to be able to hold their own against much larger and more expensive enemy vessels. The drawback of these designs is that they are vulnerable to almost all BCs and CAs, and they therefore rely on my own BCs and CAs to protect them. Therefore, while transitioning back to a more balanced BC / BB approach might make it easier to defeat the heavy ships of my two most powerful enemies – and particularly the British – this might come at the expense of having my cruiser force massacred. Therefore, it seems likely that a mixed BC / BB approach would require the extensive building of new light cruisers. An important step was taken with the completion of my latest cruisers; the five ships of the Denver class, at 5,400 tons, broke with tradition with a design speed of 28 knots, meant to outrun all known battlecruisers under construction and outmatch the small numbers of light cruisers which have been built by other nations. However, the technology required for such vessels has not yet matured; unfortunately, oil fired engines, even if speed-focused, are not yet efficient enough to be viable, and the 28 knot speed could therefore only be achieved at great cost. Since machinery technology improvements are incremental, I expect it will be a couple of years before the technology to make light cruisers which can efficiently outrun future BCs will be available to me, though in this respect I seem to be behind the historical curve. Fortunately, very little effort has been made by the other nations to replace their own light forces.
Armoured Cruisers: While my armoured cruiser force was once unmatched in the world, I made the decision several years ago to scrap my entire crop of legacy CAs, which being AI designed and armed with two single 10 inch guns were judged unsatisfactory. Since no other nation’s CAs have ever been scrapped to this day, I now have the same number of CAs as, for example, Germany. With the exception of the two most recent vessels, which are ‘dreadnought armoured cruisers’ of the Blucher type, these vessels are all armed with four 10 inch guns at 23 knots, and are therefore greatly endangered in such a battlecruiser-rich world. While I’d very much like to have everything but the dreadnought armoured cruisers scrapped as soon as possible, I am still hampered by my slow protected cruisers. Without my CAs, I may simply be overwhelmed by the number of enemy CAs. Mothballing them until a serious cruiser replacement effort can be made may be a suitable compromise.
Pre-dreadnoughts: In some ways, the battlecruiser-centric world is a favourable one for the pre-dreadnought fleet. Pre-dreadnoughts are not so drastically out-matched in combat capability by large numbers of battlecruisers as they would be by large numbers of battleships. Furthermore, since battlecruisers fight in a separate squadron in fleet battles anyway, pre-dreadnoughts do not act as ‘dead weight’ for BCs in the same way that they do for BBs. Having said that, the early employment of 14 inch and now possibly 15 inch guns may have hastened the day when the pre-dreadnought will be rendered combat ineffective, and these ships were not built to last, with little deck armour. Reconstructions to improve the deck armour, along with new fire control when it arrives, may make them reasonably effective weapons for use against earlier enemy BCs, but this is hardly likely to be an economically viable project.
Question 3: To what extent can I afford to wait for now technological breakthroughs while avoiding new construction?
The answer to this question will obviously have to wait for more concrete details on the numbers and nature of ships possessed by the world’s navies. However, given the technological limitations I have outlined, I am interested to see whether people believe a viable design can be produced immediately.
Question 5: How much effort should I put into these key breakthroughs, and how should they be prioritised, if at all?
Given the current situation, I think that the most important future near future technologies are the following, in order of precedence:
Naval Guns: A new heavy gun to replace the 13 inch Q0 weapon used in all previous designs, and compete with the 15 inch guns that are likely being used on the latest British design.
Fire Control: If newer variants of the 13 and 14 inch guns are to be used in the next generation of heavy vessels, then it is to be expected that they will continue to fight at ranges of 10 – 12,000 yards, for which the current level of technology is sufficient. However, if 15 inch guns become available, then it will be desirable to advance fire control technology as quickly as possible in order to make use of the weapon’s potential range advantage.
Armour: AoN armour is especially desirable if battlecruisers are to be emphasized, as it will make it possible to effectively protect BCs from modern weapons. It is especially desirable in any case, because of the unusual prevalence of heavy guns in this game.
Machinery: Efficient oil fuelled engines are desirable for the next generation of BCs, and especially generation for the next generation of light cruisers. However, I do not know if there is any one technology which will achieve this breakthrough, or if several incremental improvements will be needed.
Turrets and Gun Mountings: Reliable triple turrets are desirable, and especially so unless a larger naval gun is obtained, in order to offset superior enemy firepower. However, it is not crucial that this technology be obtained immediately, as it can be applied to a completed ship with a simple blank refit.
It seems to me that these breakthroughs are so important compared to other prospective technological advances that it is justifiable at the very least to set all other areas to low priority. The question, then, is how or if they should be prioritised in relation to one another. I believe that the following plan is appropriate:
Naval guns: HIGH until at least a 15 inch Q-1 or 14 inch Q1 gun is obtained.
Turrets and gun mountings: MEDIUM unless a 15 inch gun is obtained. If a 15 inch gun is obtained, reduce to LOW.
FIRE CONTROL: MEDIUM unless a 15 inch gun is obtained. If a 15 inch gun is obtained, increase to HIGH.
Armour: HIGH until AoN is obtained, then reduce to LOW.
Machinery: MEDIUM until it is possible to design an acceptable candidate for the next generation of light cruisers.
All other areas: LOW
I’d love to hear some input and discussion on these matters. Again, I will provide more detailed information as soon as I can, and feel free to post request for specific information.
Important developments early in the game strongly influenced my strategy going into the dreadnought age. I had initially intended to pursue a strategy of skimping on the battle fleet in order to invest heavily in cruisers in the early game, after which I would switch to a historical BB - centric US strategy which would soon neutralise any gains made by my rivals in the pre-dreadnought age. In the early years, the most important enemies quickly proved to be France and Germany, whose relatively modest battle fleets seemed to accommodate my strategy. However, this quickly changed when, during my first war with Germany, which had immediately followed my first war with France, tensions which had never quite settled down flared up again, and France looked ready to re-commence hostilities on the German side. Forced to contemplate war with both powers and unwilling to back down, I felt compelled to expand a planned class of two modestly-sized semi-dreadnoughts to four ships in order to at least equal the combined strength of the projected French and German battle fleets. When the brief scare ended as the inconclusive war with Germany ended shortly before the second war with France began, the four ships of the California class were just about too far along for me to consider cancelling any of them.
For the moment, my prospective 14 strong battle line put me in a commanding position against any potential enemy other than Britain - and the Californias arrived in the Carribean just in time to intimidate a hitherto uncharacteristically combative French navy into withdrawal and then surrender, ending my third inconclusive war of the game so far. With the battleship question solved for the moment beyond reasonable doubt I was able to return to my pre-planned focus on cruisers. However, the necessity of doing so, underlined especially by a resurgent Germany's extensive CA construction program – among other things – meant that by the time I was ready to return to pre-dreadnought construction, it was too late to be considered viable. As such, while I maintained a comfortable quantitative lead over all rival battle fleets except for the British at the end of the pre-dreadnought era, the latest and most advanced crop of semi-dreadnoughts, incrementally larger and more powerful than the Californias, had gone unanswered, and this had allowed Britain in particular to solidify its dominant position.
Since I had been determined to wait for four centreline turrets before laying down my first dreadnoughts, I did not enter the race early, and thus the combination of no late pre-dreadnoughts and no early dreadnoughts had opened up the qualitative battleship gap, which I now felt compelled to close. As such, when I saw that Britain’s initial crop of dreadnoughts was almost exclusively comprised of BCs, I felt that the best course of action was to focus on BBs, thus providing both an asymmetrical counter to the British and a strong symmetrical answer to the battleship gap. Two BBs were therefore accompanied by only a single BC in the first year of construction.
The Royal Navy’s first battle cruisers turned out to be rather peculiar to say the least - 25 knots, 6 inches of armour, and 8x 14 inch guns with one turret forwards, one aft, and one located midships on either side. This class of about four ships was followed up by four BBs – which, as it turned out, were almost exactly identical, except for the fact that they got a 'battleship' stamp put on them because they managed to be a single knot slower at 24 knots. I did not, however, find that out until some time after their completion, since I had assumed them to be standard 21 knot versions of the battlecruiser design. Meanwhile, every other navy was investing almost exclusively in battlecruisers, and so the first year of construction was the only year in which BBs dominated my own construction queue.
All of these factors put together meant that by the time it became clear to me that the British BBs were in fact BCs in all but name, and therefore that 24 - 25 knots was now effectively the new 'line speed' for every foreign naval power, I was not so well placed as I might have been, and I have spent most of my time and effort in the intervening years attempting to catch up.
On the bright side, both my initial 2 BBs and 1 BC and all subsequent designs had, with their 4 centreline 12 inch (and then - sooner than expected - 13 inch) guns, a comfortable qualitative advantage over their foreign contemporaries, which allowed me to make up the numbers with ships of a relatively modest displacement for a relatively reasonable cost. This put me in a fairly comfortable position by about the turn of the decade. An alliance with the British allowed me to make full use of the new fleet in a series of major actions in the Baltic and Northeast Asia against the decidedly inferior Russians.
The next major shock to the system came in about 1910 from, of all people, the Italians. News of a unique battlecruiser under construction with all of twelve 14 inch guns mounted in triple turrets on the centreline represented a quantum leap over all previous domestic and foreign designs – and at 32,500 tons, it was much bigger than any historical contemporary. Far more worryingly, the Japanese were able to respond almost immediately with no fewer than three 32,500 ton vessels of presumably a similar design, which instantly transformed them from a near non-entity into a first – rate power, co-equal to Germany as my nearest peer competitor. At that time, my dock limit was just 32,000 tons.
My response was the first class of dreadnoughts I had yet laid down which felt decidedly inadequate – as far as I can remember, eight 13 inch guns with 11 or 12 inches on the belt and turrets at 27 knots was the best could be done – though it weighed in at only 29,000 tons, there wasn’t enough room for an extra turret with adequate armour, and I didn’t yet have reliable training and elevation gear for triple turrets.
My latest design – a heavier version with 13 inches on the belt – represents what I think is a dead end in the battlecruiser design philosophy which has got me this far, which has been to put as many guns as is reasonable into a package that is well armoured enough to resist them at combat ranges. My technological limitations are being exacerbated by the variety and increasing potency of foreign designs. The newest German vessels have upgraded to a 27 knot speed; the Japanese and Italians are using 14 inch guns which may well be better than my own, and worst of all, the British are now advertising 15 inch guns which I can only presume are equipped on their newest ships under construction. I can design a ship which can compensate for the relative weakness of my Q0 13 inch guns by adding more of them. I can design a BC with stupidly heavy armour to resist 14 inch, if not 15 inch shellfire at the range at which my own guns are effective. I can design a BC which can catch up to the German ships at 27 knots. However, it is increasingly clear to me that I cannot design a ship which can do all of these things at once.
The answer, as far as I can see it, is obvious: 1912 was the year in which the Queen Elizabeth was laid down, and a Queen Elizabeth – especially as originally designed at 25 knots – would be the perfect solution. Fast enough to keep up with all existing BCs and contend with all new ones, able to fight at range, easily penetrating their armour while its own would provide plentiful protection. The British seem to have the same idea, as they reportedly have access to 15 inch guns which I can only presume their latest BCs will use.
If we consider a hypothetical ‘USS Ideal’ I would want to combine those 15 inch guns with three more decisive 1912 innovations – the AoN armour and triple turrets of Nevada, and the economical oil firing engines of both Nevada and Queen Elizabeth.
The awkward thing about 1912 is that, as of yet, I have achieved none of these innovations, and I cannot know when I will have any one of them. Therefore, any new class laid down at this time may be rendered mostly obsolete by one of them or totally obsolete by all of them long before it is completed, and yet I do not feel secure enough to simply sit and wait. Luckily, the ‘popular subscription for a battleship’ event, which conveniently showed up when I was already building enough to satisfy the build conditions, has left me with a reserve of over 50 million, which will at least allow me to make good use of the next breakthrough.
In the meantime, I am wondering how exactly to best adapt to this strange, battlecruiser – centric world moving forward, and what exactly I am supposed to do with the dead end I have reached in battlecruiser design. Whatever I do, it seems clear to me that it is necessary to break with the iterative process which I have followed up to this point, but as of yet I have not found a good answer.
In order to find an answer, I think I have to solve a few important questions:
1. How should I expect that future wars might play out?
2. How should my force structure reflect these expectations?
3. To what extent can I afford to wait for new technological breakthroughs at the expense of immediate construction?
4. How much effort should I put into these key breakthroughs, and how should they be prioritised, if at all?
I’ll attempt to detail my thoughts on these questions below.
Question 1: How should I expect that future wars might play out?
The recent war with Russia demonstrated a healthy mix of fleet engagements and cruiser engagements. However, this was likely the result of my alliance with the UK allowing me to blockade the Russians in their home region, which cannot be relied upon in the future. If future wars are fought only in regions where I have bases, then past experience gives me reason to be much more pessimistic about the potential for fleet engagements.
My three previous wars with France and Germany were inconclusive because, despite some sporadic raids by assorted battleship and CA forces against both the East and the West coast, neither enemy managed to concentrate their battle fleet well enough to fight fleet engagements except on rare occasions, even though both France and Germany had the base capacity to do so in Southeast Asia. Furthermore, despite my almost continuous superiority in both the Caribbean and Southeast Asian theatres, over the course of three wars over several years I only launched a single invasion of an enemy possession.
Two hypothetical wars are the exception to this rule: war with Britain, who can be expected to blockade me, and war with Japan, who I can blockade.
If current trends continue, then fleet battles may become even rarer once the pre-dreadnoughts are scrapped, since there won’t be enough battleships to fight meaningful engagements.
Considering this, the battlecruiser – dominated world may be very favourable to the USA, which cannot rely on the luxury of being able to blockade all its enemies.
Question 2: How should my force structure reflect these expectations?
There are two distinct options that I can see:
1. Continue to focus entirely on the battlecruiser force in order to compete symmetrically as best as possible with all other powers. Expect to fight wars in the future primarily by cruiser actions and cruiser battles. In a hypothetical war with Britain, attempt to wear down the less well armoured enemy BC force, and then fight a decisive battle bringing my 14 pre-dreadnoughts to bear along with all my remaining BCs against the remaining enemy BCs and 30 pre – dreadnoughts, thus breaking the enemy blockade.
2. Maintain a BC force strong enough to overmatch the cruiser and battlecruiser forces of most nations, but plan to fight decisive fleet battles against Britain, which will blockade me, and Japan, which I can blockade. Focus on building BBs of 21 – 24 knots to compete asymmetrically with Britain, which has the most BCs and a considerable lead on me, and Japan, which has the best BCs, and nearly as many modern BCs in the works as I have at present.
Regardless of which option is chosen, future construction and force structure will have to be largely influenced by what I decide to do with my older ships in the coming years.
Protected / Light Cruisers: Currently I maintain an approximately 20 cruiser force of mostly small, slow, but heavily armed and armoured cruisers. At 19 – 22 knots, these ships are no more than 2 knots slower than the protected cruisers of other nations, none of which have been scrapped so far. Having sacrificed speed, they are designed to be able to hold their own against much larger and more expensive enemy vessels. The drawback of these designs is that they are vulnerable to almost all BCs and CAs, and they therefore rely on my own BCs and CAs to protect them. Therefore, while transitioning back to a more balanced BC / BB approach might make it easier to defeat the heavy ships of my two most powerful enemies – and particularly the British – this might come at the expense of having my cruiser force massacred. Therefore, it seems likely that a mixed BC / BB approach would require the extensive building of new light cruisers. An important step was taken with the completion of my latest cruisers; the five ships of the Denver class, at 5,400 tons, broke with tradition with a design speed of 28 knots, meant to outrun all known battlecruisers under construction and outmatch the small numbers of light cruisers which have been built by other nations. However, the technology required for such vessels has not yet matured; unfortunately, oil fired engines, even if speed-focused, are not yet efficient enough to be viable, and the 28 knot speed could therefore only be achieved at great cost. Since machinery technology improvements are incremental, I expect it will be a couple of years before the technology to make light cruisers which can efficiently outrun future BCs will be available to me, though in this respect I seem to be behind the historical curve. Fortunately, very little effort has been made by the other nations to replace their own light forces.
Armoured Cruisers: While my armoured cruiser force was once unmatched in the world, I made the decision several years ago to scrap my entire crop of legacy CAs, which being AI designed and armed with two single 10 inch guns were judged unsatisfactory. Since no other nation’s CAs have ever been scrapped to this day, I now have the same number of CAs as, for example, Germany. With the exception of the two most recent vessels, which are ‘dreadnought armoured cruisers’ of the Blucher type, these vessels are all armed with four 10 inch guns at 23 knots, and are therefore greatly endangered in such a battlecruiser-rich world. While I’d very much like to have everything but the dreadnought armoured cruisers scrapped as soon as possible, I am still hampered by my slow protected cruisers. Without my CAs, I may simply be overwhelmed by the number of enemy CAs. Mothballing them until a serious cruiser replacement effort can be made may be a suitable compromise.
Pre-dreadnoughts: In some ways, the battlecruiser-centric world is a favourable one for the pre-dreadnought fleet. Pre-dreadnoughts are not so drastically out-matched in combat capability by large numbers of battlecruisers as they would be by large numbers of battleships. Furthermore, since battlecruisers fight in a separate squadron in fleet battles anyway, pre-dreadnoughts do not act as ‘dead weight’ for BCs in the same way that they do for BBs. Having said that, the early employment of 14 inch and now possibly 15 inch guns may have hastened the day when the pre-dreadnought will be rendered combat ineffective, and these ships were not built to last, with little deck armour. Reconstructions to improve the deck armour, along with new fire control when it arrives, may make them reasonably effective weapons for use against earlier enemy BCs, but this is hardly likely to be an economically viable project.
Question 3: To what extent can I afford to wait for now technological breakthroughs while avoiding new construction?
The answer to this question will obviously have to wait for more concrete details on the numbers and nature of ships possessed by the world’s navies. However, given the technological limitations I have outlined, I am interested to see whether people believe a viable design can be produced immediately.
Question 5: How much effort should I put into these key breakthroughs, and how should they be prioritised, if at all?
Given the current situation, I think that the most important future near future technologies are the following, in order of precedence:
Naval Guns: A new heavy gun to replace the 13 inch Q0 weapon used in all previous designs, and compete with the 15 inch guns that are likely being used on the latest British design.
Fire Control: If newer variants of the 13 and 14 inch guns are to be used in the next generation of heavy vessels, then it is to be expected that they will continue to fight at ranges of 10 – 12,000 yards, for which the current level of technology is sufficient. However, if 15 inch guns become available, then it will be desirable to advance fire control technology as quickly as possible in order to make use of the weapon’s potential range advantage.
Armour: AoN armour is especially desirable if battlecruisers are to be emphasized, as it will make it possible to effectively protect BCs from modern weapons. It is especially desirable in any case, because of the unusual prevalence of heavy guns in this game.
Machinery: Efficient oil fuelled engines are desirable for the next generation of BCs, and especially generation for the next generation of light cruisers. However, I do not know if there is any one technology which will achieve this breakthrough, or if several incremental improvements will be needed.
Turrets and Gun Mountings: Reliable triple turrets are desirable, and especially so unless a larger naval gun is obtained, in order to offset superior enemy firepower. However, it is not crucial that this technology be obtained immediately, as it can be applied to a completed ship with a simple blank refit.
It seems to me that these breakthroughs are so important compared to other prospective technological advances that it is justifiable at the very least to set all other areas to low priority. The question, then, is how or if they should be prioritised in relation to one another. I believe that the following plan is appropriate:
Naval guns: HIGH until at least a 15 inch Q-1 or 14 inch Q1 gun is obtained.
Turrets and gun mountings: MEDIUM unless a 15 inch gun is obtained. If a 15 inch gun is obtained, reduce to LOW.
FIRE CONTROL: MEDIUM unless a 15 inch gun is obtained. If a 15 inch gun is obtained, increase to HIGH.
Armour: HIGH until AoN is obtained, then reduce to LOW.
Machinery: MEDIUM until it is possible to design an acceptable candidate for the next generation of light cruisers.
All other areas: LOW
I’d love to hear some input and discussion on these matters. Again, I will provide more detailed information as soon as I can, and feel free to post request for specific information.