Gentlemen,
It has been a quiet year. We have focused on handling the transition to peace well, with our only new construction being the carrier Bearn. La Fayette, commissioned a year ago, is the most formidable carrier in the world, and Bearn is a major step beyond that.
We will have two CLs commissioning later this year, and need to decide what to replace them with. Our preferred option is destroyers, probably armed with twin 4" guns. This gives easy DP conversion in the next few years, as well as reasonable size compared to a twin 5" ship.
Our current fleet
Ships under construction
February 1927
CVL La Fayette commissions. BB Caiman finishes her reconstruction. Breakthrough: Torpedo protection IV. An improved version of the MS.98 B enters service. Germany and Italy each commission a KE.
March 1927
We scrap CAs Dupleix and Desaix. US lays down an AV. Germany commissions a KE, UK a CA, Italy a KE, the US a CL.
April 1927
Germany commissions a DD, Italy 3 KE, the US 2 CL.
May 1927
We buy Improved wet heater engine from the British. Germany commissions a DD, Italy a CA and a KE, Japan a CA, the US a CL.
June 1927
CV Bearn is laid down. Germany commissions a BC, Italy a KE, Japan a CA, the US a CL. 2 DDs begin reconstruction.
July 1927
August 1927
4 DDs commission. Breakthrough: Advanced preheater. Japan lays down 2 DD. Germany commissions 1 KE, UK 1 BC, 2 DD, Italy 2 KE. CA Jeanne d'Arc scrapped.
September 1927
CL Duguay-Trouin commissions. Breakthrough: Advanced signalling. Germany lays down a DD, as does the UK. Germany commissions 2 KE, AH 1 BC, UK 3 DD, Italy 1 KE. 3 DDs begin reconstruction.
October 1927
2 DDs finish reconstruction. Breakthrough: Improved pressure hull. UK lays down 2 DD, commissions 1 DD. Italy commissions 1 KE.
November 1927
Our spies steal the blueprints for Austrian BB Monarch. Breakthrough: Improved hydrophones, improved 9" gun (+1). UK lays down 4 DD, AH commissions a BC, UK a DD, Italy a CL.
December 1928
UK lays down 2 DD. Germany commissions 1 DD, 1 CVL. AH commissions a BC, UK a DD, Italy a KE, US a CA and a CL.
Destroyer designs
A 4" destroyer, our preferred choice
6x5"
8x5"
A different 6x5" layout
January 1929
Gentlemen,
It has been an interesting year. First, we laid down 10 new destroyers, with twin DP 4" guns. Then the government got a weird idea that we needed more battleships, and we ended up with three new ships, which more or less got paid for due to increased tensions with Germany. Right now, we have two battleships, a carrier, and 10 destroyers about to complete, which leaves future building programs open. The best suggestion is probably to lay down more colonial CLs, as our ships of that type are rapidly growing obsolete.
Our current fleet
Ships under construction
January 1928
February 1928
We decline a Japanese offer for an alliance. 6 DD Harpon laid down. Germany commissions 2 DD, Japan 2 CL, Italy 1 KE. We begin a competition for a new floatplane scout.
March 1928
CL Emile Bertin commissions. AH lays down 3 DD, Japan 2 DD. US commissions 1 CA, 1 DD. 2 more DD Harpon laid down.
April 1928
CL Chasseloup Laubat commissions. We buy Turbo electric drive from the British. Breakthrough: Large diesel engines. AH lays down a DD, Italy a BC, Japan a DD. Germany commissions 2 CL, AH a BC, the US a CVL and 2 CAs. We lay down 2 more Harpon.
May 1928
The Prime Minister places a request before Parliment for 3 additional battleships, even though we don't particularly want them right now. We'll slow them down while the Suffrens finish, but this is going to be tight on our budget. AH lays down 2 DD and a BC, UK a CA, Japan 2 DD. UK commissions 1 CA, 1 CL, US 1 CA. The resulting battleship, Magenta, has improved torpedo protection, a slightly thicker deck, and 24 4" twin DP secondaries in place of the usual 6" battery.
June 1928
We sell the Italians Forced Circulation. Germany lays down 2 DD, UK 1 DD, US 3 DD and 1 CA. Japan commissions a CA.
July 1928
We condemn a German naval rearmament program. Breakthrough: Advanced weight saving, better 17" gun (0). UK lays down 3 DD, Japan and US 1 DD each. Germany commissions a CL, Japan a CA, US an AV and a CA. We begin a refit on BB Iena.
August 1928
Germany lays down 2 DD, AH 4 DD and a CVL, UK 1 CL and 1 DD, Japan 1 CV and 2 DD, US 2 DD. Japan commissions 3 DD.
September 1928
We select the Farman F.109 for our new floatplane scout. Germany lays down a BC and a CL, the UK 3 DD, the US 4 DD, Japan 1 DD. UK commissions 1 DD, Japan 2 DD. We take the opportunity to fit Magenta for a seaplane.
October 1928
Our spies steal the blueprints for the BC Prinz Heinrich. Breakthrough: Large scale helium production. BBs Magenta, Indomptable, and Gaulois laid down. UK lays down 2 DD, Japan 1 CVL and 2 DD, USA 4 DD. Germany and UK each commission a DD.
November 1928
We have achieved praise for building the requested number of battleships. BB Iena finishes reconstruction. Britain takes over Iceland after upheaval there, with our tacit blessing. Amusingly, the picture the game shows is a camel on a beach with a cruiser in the background. AH lays down 3 DD, Japan 1 CV, 4 DD, Italy 1 CA, UK 1 BB. UK commissions 4 DD.
Comments
I'd be interested in hearing more about Aurora, but then I'd like to see how France fares in the '30s and '40s too. More importantly, which sounds more appealing to you?
If Lafayette really the best carrier in the world? It looks like the USA may have a pair of 26,000 ton CVs, bigger even than Bearn. Even if they are BC conversions, so less spacious than a new design, they're probably pretty fearsome. Of course, we were planning on avoiding a conflict with the US anyway.
I'd be interested in seeing some new destroyer designs, preferably something bigger than the 1,500 ton DDs that the Germans are building, and that can free up our 1,100 ton DDs for ASW work in the Med. 4" sounds suitable for a heavy AA gun, though the 5"/38 does make a heavier gun attractive too. Do we have +1 quality in both calibres?
I think I’d prefer to do Aurora for now, although I’m definitely not killing off RTW2, just suspending it for a few weeks.
The American carriers are both converted early BCs. Our intel says they’re capable of maybe 25 kts, and carry 20-something planes each.
We only have +1 4″ guns, not 5″, and our engineers are actively working on DP mounts for destroyers, which won’t be available in 5″ for at least 5 years. When that becomes available, the calculus changes significantly. I've posted designs with both calibers.
Okay, so 4" guns make sense. Let's go for design I. Speaking of guns, we're making them a high priority for research, and I'm not sure what our plans our for battleships and battlecruisers. When, if ever, might we lay down our next one, and what sort of armament would we be looking for? I could see us building carriers, cruisers and destroyers (and aircraft) for a few years, by which point we might be looking at the final generation of battleships. Are there any changes we should make to our research program (or dock size) to prepare for this?
How would you feel about sending the Bouvets to the reserve, or scrapping the mothballed Duquesnes?
I look forward to seeing how Aurora works.
Nooooo, if you do an Aurora tutorial, it'll take away my last excuse to not sink 500 hours into the game! (it sounds fun)
Do tensions in RTW build globally into total world war at any point? Or do they continue the "chronic spats" model of European wars?
If I understand the +/- system for gun calibers correctly, isn't a 4"+1 approximately equivalent with a 5"+0 in terms of capability, but significantly lighter? Is there any benefit to the 5"+0?
I'm not sure what to do with the next generation of BBs. I do think we'll want them at some point. It's still a bit early to kill off the battleship entirely. Suffren is basically a bigger IRL Richelieu, although who knows what the rest of the world will be building in a world without the treaties.
We can definitely reserve the Bouvets and scrap the Duquesnes.
@echo
Not that I've seen. The diplomatic model isn't really set up for it, unfortunately.
@DuskStar
That applies more to the bigger guns. The 5" +0 is a more powerful gun than the 4" +1, particularly in terms of armor penetration, but DP is going to be more and more important going forward.
For our last battleships, we'd probably keep to 28kn, because we'd make up the numbers with our current BBs. I suppose 30kn might be an option if we expect to use them as escorts for our carriers. At the moment, our best gun is the 15", so perhaps a main battery of three quad 15" turrets. That doesn't sound great for going up against an Iowa or Yamato, or whatever the Germans might build on 60,000+ tons. By the time we build them we may well have better guns however. If we reduced the research priority of AP and HE shells, or torpedoes for a couple of years, what would be the best place to refocus? Armour and hull construction? Ship design? How long would it take to build docks big enough for such ships?
Well that was interesting. Played through 1928, and we ended up getting a request from the government for 3 new battleships, which we accepted. So now we have 3 Suffren derivatives on the slip, with 24 4" DP guns for secondary armament, and better torpedo protection. It's straining the budget, but not breaking it. Also, 10 new destroyers about to start commissioning, with 4" DP guns of their own because that tech was developed in January, before we started the destroyers.
That is a very substantial fleet of battleships. We've got two finishing in early 1929, and then three more in '31? Does that change our thinking at all about subsequent battleships? I know we don't have to start designing them yet, and we probably don't have all the technical advances they'd ideally feature, but I'd still like to see some speculation. More practically, would it be worth looking at replacing some of our existing capital ships secondary batteries with 4" DP? Should we hold out for 5"? Or, perhaps for the ships with casemates, just stick with their existing armament?
When the two Suffrens finish, have you any plans for what should follow, or are the new BBs eating too much of the budget for anything major?
We got a big budget increase off of a couple of events, most notably calling Germany on a potential rearmament program. We're losing about 5.8k a month, which means that we should have about 2k/month after both ships complete. Maybe a couple of CLs, or more of the new destroyers.
Of Isly, Friant, Lavoisier, Descartes and the Du Chaylas, which are worth another refit, and which need replacing? They're getting a bit old, and our newest (surviving) CLs aren't fitted for colonial duties. I'd spend some money there, unless you think Germany will soon be ready for round two.
January 1929 is up.
Obviously I agree with you about the CLs. I'd still suggest disposing of Tourville and Dunkerque, and also consider how much longer we hang on to the Devastations and Bouvets. I reckon we'll have much more than 2k/month to play with, nearer 7k, and even more when Bearn is ready. Perhaps we could start a couple more CVs this year too?
Were the BCs we sunk in our war with Germany comparable to Prinz Heinrich? Because they look pretty fearsome - do you ever see us building something faster and more heavily armed, or will we be dependent on aircraft to slow them down?
Tourville and Dunkerque have been scrapped. The German BCs ranged from very old to a couple that were quite new, if a generation older than Prinz Heinrich. Not sure about building faster ships. Remind me to do sketches when play resumes.
Will do. I'm getting ahead a bit, because we'd be building cruisers and probably carriers first. Mostly I'm speculating about our requirements for battleships years in advance of us coming up with the final design. Do we opt for something more like a Montana (same speed as the rest of our battleships) or an Iowa (swap some armour and firepower for the speed to chase down e.g. Prinz Heinrich)?