Gentlemen,
We have arrived at a crucial juncture. Our current building programs are about to come to an end, and the past year has been extraordinarily fruitful in terms of setting up our future fleet. Specifically, we have made a deal with the British to guarantee our supply of oil, and our researchers have discovered a number of technologies that will aid future ships.
With Ocean just commissioning, and two more battleships about to enter service in the next year, we have many options in terms of what to lay down. The design staff is hard at work producing new sketches for all types, and they will be made available next week.
Our current fleet
Ships under construction
April 1919
2 DTs and 3 Sfaxes begin conversion to aviation ships. We strike a deal with the British to provide us with oil, allowing us to use that for fuel going forward. The remaining Cassards begin their refit, as do the Sabertaches. Breakthrough: Dual purpose mounting. Germany and Italy lay down AVs, AH commissions a KE, UK a BB.
May 1919
June 1919
CLs Protet and Catinat and DD Sabertache finish reconstruction. Our spies steal blueprints for US BC Ticonderoga and the Japanese floatplane scout Saiun. Dewoitine develops an improved model of the D.60, which we eagerly put into service. Japan commissions an AV.
July 1919
Poignard class DDs begin their conversion. DD Fanion finishes reconstruction. Breakthrough: TNT warhead. Germany and Japan commission BBs, Japan a KE, UK a CL.
August 1919
Arbalette class DDs begin their conversion. We buy Improved design calculations from the Germans. Breakthrough: Purpose built aircraft carrier. Our new fighter, the Loire 63, enters service. Germany lays down a BB, the US an AV. Germany commissions a CL, UK 2 CL and 1 BB, Italy 1 CL, Japan 1 BB, 1 AV, 1 KE.
September 1919
2 DDs commission and 2 finish their reconstructions. Breakthroughs: Ballistic cap, Improved compressed air supply, ASW mines. Germany lays down a CL, Japan a BB. Germany commissions BB, UK and Italy CLs.
October 1919
All three Devastations begin refit to gain improved elevation, secondary directors, and AA guns. 4 KE commission, 2 DD complete refits. Our spies steal the blueprints to Austrian BC Tirol. Breakthrough: Airship bomb armament. 9" gun (quality 0) researched. AH lays down BC, Japan 2 KE. Germany commissions 1 BB, 1 BC, 1 KE, Italy 1 CL.
November 1919
The Destrees class CLs begin their refits. Breakthrough: HA rangefinder. Germany lays down a BC, US 2 KE, UK commissions 1 BC, 1 AV.
December 1919
Germany lays down 1 BB, 1 AV. AH lays down 1 BB. UK lays down 3 DD. UK commissions 1 BB, 1 BC, Germany and Japan 1 KE each.
January 1920
Private shipbuilding expands max dock size by 500 tons. Both Destrees finish their reconstruction, as do all three battleships. DD Flamberge is commissioned. Breakthrough: Weight saving. UK lays down 3 DD.
February 1920
Lille and both Bouvets begin reconstruction. DD Pertusiane commissions. Breakthroughs: Superimposed turrets on CA, Effective sigint. Germany lays down a BC, UK 1 AV and 3 DD, US 1 AV. Japan commissions 1 BB, US 1 AV and 1 CL.
March 1920
CL Lavoisier begins her refit. CL Guichen and BB Ocean commission. 2 AVs and 2 CVLs join the fleet. AH lays down 1 AV, Germany 3 DD. AH commissions 1 AV.
1920 Sketch designs
An updated Ocean with more armor
A 15" BB derivative
A 15" BB with twin guns, which cost more ROF
A 24-plane purpose-built CVL
An 11" CA, carrying the best guns we have in the CA region
A 10" CA
A 10" CA with 7 guns
A shorter-range 11" CA
A 9" CA with more guns
A 9" CA with quad turrets
A modernized Guichen
A Destrees-based long-range CA
A faster Destrees update
A modernized destroyer
Comments
Some nice breakthroughs!
Could you post a screenshot of the gun quality page?
Good idea. We could also redirect research from shells to guns in the hope of getting 16" +1 as well.
Basically I was thinking about a hybrid of my and Alexander's cruiser ideas from the last post, something like this now that we have superimposed turrets on CA.
We have 11" +1s, and only 3" and 4" DP secondaries, so I don't think matching that exactly makes sense, but it's an interesting idea. I'll do a sketch of that.
Also, I've posted the gun table under research, above.
That does look like an impressive cruiser, and 2x4 10" +0 might be better than 2x3 11" +1, if it means we have more freedom with the rest of the design. Upgrades, conversions and more light cruisers are perhaps higher priority, but since we have a larger budget surplus and plenty of cash in reserve even before the last two Oceans are finished we can probably afford to lay down a couple of CAs this year.
We could definitely use some new cruisers. But of course we can't slack on capital ships--maybe a pair, with those new 15" +1 guns? That should leave a decent surplus for everything else.
Purpose-built CVLs are also an option now, though air-to-surface capabilities remain mostly speculative.
@ADifferentAnonymous
We are getting behind in BBs/BCs, but those we have are pretty good. I was hoping that CAs could take on some of the battlecruiser missions at maybe half the cost of a Nancy. If we just lay down one 15" +1 BB this year so we can afford all the cruisers then we'd have to wait until around 1922 to start more. Is that too long to wait? Maybe we will have to keep the Bruix and Chateaurenaults in service for a few more years.
I'd definitely hold off on purpose built CVLs until we have a bit more experience with the Dupetit-Thouars conversions, and perhaps have got the Duquesnes operating as carriers too. We'll have a better idea of what we want in a carrier, and hopefully less pressure on our construction budget. Until then, our land based aircraft are able to cover a fair bit of the western Med, as well as the channel.
Hmm... I suppose that if our British ally is worth anything at all, our advantage over Germany in fleet battles is fairly safe and it makes sense to invest more in locking down sea control. So if we're confident in our heavy cruiser design, we can probably afford to ease up on capital ships for a cycle.
I am possibly making assumptions about what is practical based on a shallow understanding of naval tactics, but I think that by having the faster fleet we can influence the movement of the enemy. In order to avoid us crossing their T, they'll presumably try and turn away from us if we get ahead of them. If that works, we might be able to herd them towards our British allies, to encourage them to participate. Alternatively we might attempt to move the engagement closer to friendly aircover, or prevent the Germans from heading home.
Is my plan remotely viable? Does greater speed let you influence the direction of an engagement, as well as giving you the option to break off from or continue the fight?
Allies don't act independently in combat. Instead, you get a squadron or two (say 4 ships) to attach to your force. Unfortunately, all of the British BBs are basically 21-ktrs, so we might have some issues with tactical homogeneity.
Greater speed is always useful, particularly when you need to close and they don't want you to, although the game usually denies you any really clever tactics. To put it simply, there are fewer constraints on maneuver than in real life, and so any time you do cross the T, they tend to just turn away.
Direct control of the British ships makes things easier Ü
As for what to build, I think a 15" Battleship (is there any reason to choose double turrets?), a pair of CA-20-I, and some CL-20-I. We have a decent reserve of cash, so we should be able to start quite a few light cruisers even while continuing to upgrade our existing vessels.
Re: CA gunning. The only point to using 10" guns on CAs would be to be able to exceed the 12000 ton limit on the Deutschland-type clause. For example, extra tonnage could be used to increase speed to 31 knots or to maximize protection.
(Notes: These were generated using a 1920 start which I just remembered existed, so there may be slight differences in tech. In the game, all-or-nothing armor can be applied to cruisers as well, though I don't know off the top of my head how historical this is. I also packed more ammunition.)
Otherwise I would absolutely go with the 11" guns.
Double turrets are lighter per-gun, but not 20% lighter, which is what the current RoF penalty probably is. Eventually the penalty will go away, but that will probably require a refit.
Those are both a fair bit more expensive than CA-20-1, though the 31kn design would be able to evade all those old 12" gunned BCs out there, whereas our 11" design might have to fight. The extra speed could also come in handy chasing down enemy cruisers. I can't decide whether I prefer the faster ship, or the cheaper design with better guns.
Of the two 15" BBs, I'm getting that the individual 6" turrets give a greater weight of fire, but the double turrets save weight, which could be useful for AAA later. Also the difference in rate of fire can eventually be resolved. If I've got that right, I'd pick the double turrets, since we'll have these ships a while, and I think we're less worried about destroyers now than than we will be by aircraft in the '30s.
Ah. I misread the restrictions, and kept all of the designs at 12,000 tons or less. As for the double turret refit, I checked the ship save file once, and didn't see any signs that that data was stored there, so I'd presume it auto-upgrades.
Plan for play tomorrow: Design BB-20-II, CA-20-I, and CL-20-I. Ultimate goal is 2 BB, 1 CA, and as many CLs as I can get on the budget.
Gentlemen, a question has come up. Our security arrangement with the British is up for renewal, but German diplomats have also offered us an alliance. Who should we align ourselves with?
(OOC: The agreement with Britain lapsed, even though that makes no sense, and I later got an offer from Germany. I now know how to edit the save file to make either one our ally, and thought you should get to weigh in. As a result, the post will be delayed until tomorrow afternoon.)