|
|
Post by generalvikus on May 28, 2020 2:32:52 GMT -6
seawolfJust a reminder that the historical British and American capital ships retained under the Washington Treaty but later scrapped (King George V, Iron Duke, Tiger, and Florida classes) have been added to their own saves, but not to the saves of other nations.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 28, 2020 11:30:11 GMT -6
seawolf Just a reminder that the historical British and American capital ships retained under the Washington Treaty but later scrapped (King George V, Iron Duke, Tiger, and Florida classes) have been added to their own saves, but not to the saves of other nations. There’s a lot more than them coming in the new update |
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on May 28, 2020 21:42:35 GMT -6
Awesome!
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 29, 2020 1:26:59 GMT -6
Edit: If you're looking through this from later, I decided against it
So, if you've played the no WNT treaty start, you probably noticed Italy is significantly behind most other nations, including its immediate rival France. Its Francesco Caracciolo class fast battleships would have been the best in the world-if they had entered service about 8 years prior. In 1922 those four ships make up the only new ships the Italians actually had building. As such, I'm considering adding a class of battleships based on 1915 or 1921 Italian designs, modernized and modified to fit 1922 tech. How do we feel about adding these paper ships, which would have been the Italian response to the Lyon class(Which are included).
Which of the below ships, if any, do you think should be added.
The first three are from Ferrati Design F 1915, the fourth is Ferrati design G 1915, and the fifth is Cassone BC design 1921.
Design G has quite a bit of firepower, because yes those are 4 quadruple 15 inch turrets
Cassone's design is essentially an Italian #13 or L class, but they could make for interesting game-play.
One of the Design Fs is probably the most realistic.
Just for fun, here are the other Italian Dreadnought Battleships
|
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on May 29, 2020 7:37:33 GMT -6
Do you mean adding these ships as under construction, or on paper? Do you think they would've been under construction by February 1922 if there had been no naval negotiations? Personally, I prefer for historical imbalances to be left in any historical mod - taking a historical nation in a historically bad state of affairs is, after all, a far more satisfying way of providing the player with a challenge than other, artificial limitations. So if these ships were planned to be under construction, then I'd say by all means go ahead - and if not, I'd say leave it as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 29, 2020 9:39:52 GMT -6
Do you mean adding these ships as under construction, or on paper? Do you think they would've been under construction by February 1922 if there had been no naval negotiations? Personally, I prefer for historical imbalances to be left in any historical mod - taking a historical nation in a historically bad state of affairs is, after all, a far more satisfying way of providing the player with a challenge than other, artificial limitations. So if these ships were planned to be under construction, then I'd say by all means go ahead - and if not, I'd say leave it as it is. Given that the First World War occurred, I am very doubtful that any of the older designs would have been laid down; Italy essentially suspended its capital ship program for the duration of the war.
As to the newer design, Italy had neither the economic strength nor the political will to carry out a major naval construction program after the war ended - especially considering that France was in a similar position and both Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire collapsed at the end of World War One. If France built something new after the war then Italy might've responded, but as neither France nor Italy felt able to so much as complete a single ship out of the Normandie- and Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships after the war ended due in large part to economic issues I don't think that a new battleship or battlecruiser construction program would have gotten very far by 1920-1922 even without the Washington Naval Conference - and I especially don't think that a program of behemoths such as these would have gotten approval.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 29, 2020 10:02:58 GMT -6
1922 is a weird time historically as Europe is experiencing a recession and budget crisis, while America and Japan are clearly not.
The G3s and N3s weren’t even laid down when the Washington Naval treaty was signed, compared to the 15! capital ships the US had under construction.
As such, the No WNT start is a bit more of an alternate history, where France, Italy, Great Britain, (and the Germans and Russians) aren’t facing temporary budget constraints. Remember that both the French and Italians launched massive naval programs just a few years later starting the 1920s naval race of heavy cruisers.
If the N3s and Lyons weren’t included, I wouldn’t even consider it to maintain complete historical accuracy, but they are, so it might make sense to add a 2 or 3 ship class Italian response. Of course, the German and Russian starts are complete alternate history so they contain paper ships(L20ea, Ersatz Yorck, 1916 Russian BB)
On the other hand, the WNT start is aiming for complete historical faithfulness.
Another possibility I'm considering is cutting down the NoWNT start to make a more historical version(No N3s, No13, Kii, Lyon)
Then this mod would have 6 Versions and 42 starts. (WNT, No WNT, Full no WNT)(with and without Versailles/October Revolution)
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 29, 2020 11:08:44 GMT -6
Remember that both the French and Italians launched massive naval programs just a few years later starting the 1920s naval race of heavy cruisers. France laid down seven ~10,000t heavy and five ~7,000t light cruisers between 1922 and 1931 at a rate of about one per year (Duguay-Trouin, 1922; La Motte-Picquet and Primaguet, 1923; Duquesne, 1924; Tourville, 1925; Suffren, 1926; Colbert, 1927; Foch and Jean d'Arc, 1928; Dupleix, 1929; Algerie and Emile Bertin, 1931) - not exactly a particularly ambitious cruiser program, even if you add in the twelve destroyers and twenty-six torpedo boats built in the same period, and hardly something where you could exchange a battleship for the ships historically laid down in a one- or two-year period.
Italy's program is similar in the total number of cruisers and tonnage of destroyers produced, but the cruiser side is much more heavily concentrated and so maybe you could trade ships historically laid down in a year or two for a battleship, but it's also very heavily weighted towards the end of the decade, with the two Trentos being laid down in 1925 and all the other cruisers being laid down from 1928 onwards (Alberto da Giussano, Alberico da Barbiano, Bartolomeo Colleoni, and Giovanni delle Bande Nere, 1928; Zara and Fiume, 1929; Luigi Cadorna, Armando Diaz, Gorizia, and Bolzano, 1930; Pola, Raimondo Montecuccoli, and Mutzio Attendolo, 1931), and while the destroyers are more evenly spread out over the decade and more numerous than their French counterparts, they're also generally smaller.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 29, 2020 11:09:35 GMT -6
Here's what the capital ship line-up currently looks like, showing how much worse off Italy is.  Compared to this if I added two of Caracciolo's successors (The smallest design)  |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 29, 2020 11:14:09 GMT -6
Remember that both the French and Italians launched massive naval programs just a few years later starting the 1920s naval race of heavy cruisers. France laid down seven ~10,000t heavy and five ~7,000t light cruisers between 1922 and 1931 at a rate of about one per year (Duguay-Trouin, 1922; La Motte-Picquet and Primaguet, 1923; Duquesne, 1924; Tourville, 1925; Suffren, 1926; Colbert, 1927; Foch and Jean d'Arc, 1928; Dupleix, 1929; Algerie and Emile Bertin, 1931) - not exactly a particularly ambitious cruiser program, even if you add in the twelve destroyers and twenty-six torpedo boats built in the same period, and hardly something where you could exchange a battleship for the ships historically laid down in a one- or two-year period.
Italy's program is similar in the total number of cruisers and tonnage of destroyers produced, but the cruiser side is much more heavily concentrated and so maybe you could trade ships historically laid down in a year or two for a battleship, but it's also very heavily weighted towards the end of the decade, with the two Trentos being laid down in 1925 and all the other cruisers being laid down from 1928 onwards (Alberto da Giussano, Alberico da Barbiano, Bartolomeo Colleoni, and Giovanni delle Bande Nere, 1928; Zara and Fiume, 1929; Luigi Cadorna, Armando Diaz, Gorizia, and Bolzano, 1930; Pola, Raimondo Montecuccoli, and Mutzio Attendolo, 1931), and while the destroyers are more evenly spread out over the decade and more numerous than their French counterparts, they're also generally smaller.
Oh definitely. Even without restrictions, European naval programs would have budget issues in the aftermath of WWI. Its more of an if the British started the N3s and if the French had restarted the Lyons, in addition to finishing the G3s and Normandies, would the Italians have restarted their work on Caracciolo's successors? And which design would it have been? The 1915 designs are surprisingly modern, comparable to any post-war design, and the 1921 design is very similar to No13, making them both suitable candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 29, 2020 12:10:53 GMT -6
Here's what the capital ship line-up currently looks like, showing how much worse off Italy is. If there is an issue in evidence in the Almanac screenshots you have provided, it is that Russia is somehow building 300,000 tons of battleships despite having a larger extant fleet than France but only two-thirds or so of the budget - especially considering that this is nominally a 'historical' start and Russia was in the midst of a civil war in 1920.
An Italian capital ship program of one battleship and four battlecruisers totaling 189,000 tons, as shown in the first Almanac screenshot, seems reasonable or perhaps even a bit large relative to the French capital ship program of eight battleships totaling 288,000 tons given France has twice the naval budget and about the same extant fleet, reasonable relative to the American capital ship program of nine battleships and six battlecruisers totaling 663,000 tons given that the USA has about three times the naval budget and three times the extant fleet, reasonable relative to the Japanese capital ship program of six battleships and eight battlecruisers totaling 699,000 tons given that Japan has about three times the naval budget and twice the extant fleet, and reasonable relative to the British capital ship program of 480,000 tons given that Britain has about three times the naval budget and five times the extant fleet. Increasing the Italian naval program by 'only' a pair of the smallest of the paper designs you showed earlier gives Italy a disproportionately-large construction program by a significant margin, and given the relative budgets you'd have to ask where the money's going for most of the other powers if Italy's program is reasonable or where Italy's construction budget is coming from if the other powers' programs are reasonable.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 29, 2020 12:32:16 GMT -6
Here's what the capital ship line-up currently looks like, showing how much worse off Italy is. If there is an issue in evidence in the Almanac screenshots you have provided, it is that Russia is somehow building 300,000 tons of battleships despite having a larger extant fleet than France but only two-thirds or so of the budget - especially considering that this is nominally a 'historical' start and Russia was in the midst of a civil war in 1920.
An Italian capital ship program of one battleship and four battlecruisers totaling 189,000 tons, as shown in the first Almanac screenshot, seems reasonable or perhaps even a bit large relative to the French capital ship program of eight battleships totaling 288,000 tons given France has twice the naval budget and about the same extant fleet, reasonable relative to the American capital ship program of nine battleships and six battlecruisers totaling 663,000 tons given that the USA has about three times the naval budget and three times the extant fleet, reasonable relative to the Japanese capital ship program of six battleships and eight battlecruisers totaling 699,000 tons given that Japan has about three times the naval budget and twice the extant fleet, and reasonable relative to the British capital ship program of 480,000 tons given that Britain has about three times the naval budget and five times the extant fleet. Increasing the Italian naval program by 'only' a pair of the smallest of the paper designs you showed earlier gives Italy a disproportionately-large construction program by a significant margin, and given the relative budgets you'd have to ask where the money's going for most of the other powers if Italy's program is reasonable or where Italy's construction budget is coming from if the other powers' programs are reasonable.
This is the historic based start. Those are actually republican Germany and Russia, that didn't have the Versailles treaty or civil war so kept their WWI fleets. The WNT and a reduced version of this will be the historic starts. As to the ratio. France has 9 capital ships building, 4 Normandies, 4 Lyons, and Bearn. Italy would have 6, 4 Francisco Caracciolos plus 2 Lepantos, as well as the Leonardo da Vinci under long term repair. I think that squares pretty well with a 600k versus 900k budget Edit: Oh and the Russian budget is like that because they're not building any ships other than those battleships. The French and Italians are building CLs and DDs |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 29, 2020 12:34:20 GMT -6
And since base resources matter more than budget, here is the initial Full no WNT starting budget constraints  |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 30, 2020 19:43:24 GMT -6
(Testing) "Dear Japan, Please Chill Sincerely, The Rest of the World"  So Yeah, that's Japan building 11 No13 class super Battleships. Normal budget modifier is around 18 for peacetime, I had it set for 25 for Japan at the start and they proceeded to launch a massive shipbuilding program after completing Amagi and Tosa class ships. Somehow it stayed up that high for a while without severe unrest I'll be adjusting this, of course, because at this point, 6 years in(1928), the British have also completed 8 N3 class battleships and the US 9 SoDak class. The only nation that appears to have the right budget in this iteration is surprisingly No Versailles Germany. |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Jun 14, 2020 13:56:32 GMT -6
Quick update, I'm pretty close to finishing polishing the NoWNT part, and the WNT starts shouldn't be far behind
|
|
