SDN World 3 Commentary Thread II

[Shinn Langley Soryu]

...Crap. Now you just reminded me of how I haven't listed my own fortifications in my OOB. I guess I'll go retcon those into existence...

[Ma Deuce]

Because he's an NF4 nation that kinda skimped on destroyers, looking at his OrBat.

I'll say. As near as I can tell, he's only got 21 cruisers and 29 destroyers to screen those capital ships. That's what I would consider fatally underscreened, and it would be a serious problem against another NF4 player that can throw a lot of destroyer spam at him. Now the Mexican battlefleet will still be capable of easily crushing Ryan's surface units (which seem to lack screens at all), but their cruiser/destroyer forces are simply not numerous to have any hope of hunting down all 64 of those Columbian submarine cruisers, and they will probably be unable to provide a dense enough screen against submarine attacks on the Mexican battleline. That will be the real problem.

For the record I'm NF4 as well, and I have 19 active capital ships (21 by year's end), but I also have almost 50 cruisers and 130 destroyers.

Now, back to working out my forts: 'course that should be taken in the context that by the time my home forts come into play, my navy will be on the bottom of the ocean and therefore my nation is effectively defeated already, so I'm going to focus on the outlying islands first before attempting to do mainland Madagascar.

[Norade]

Because he's an NF4 nation that kinda skimped on destroyers, looking at his OrBat.

I'll say. As near as I can tell, he's only got 21 cruisers and 29 destroyers to screen those capital ships. That's what I would consider fatally underscreened, and it would be a serious problem against another NF4 player that can throw a lot of destroyer spam at him. Now the Mexican battlefleet will still be capable of easily crushing Ryan's surface units (which seem to lack screens at all), but their cruiser/destroyer forces are simply not numerous to have any hope of hunting down all 64 of those Columbian submarine cruisers, and they will probably be unable to provide a dense enough screen against submarine attacks on the Mexican battleline. That will be the real problem.

For the record I'm NF4 as well, and I have 19 active capital ships (21 by year's end), but I also have almost 50 cruisers and 130 destroyers.

Now, back to working out my forts: 'course that should be taken in the context that by the time my home forts come into play, my navy will be on the bottom of the ocean and therefore my nation is effectively defeated already, so I'm going to focus on the outlying islands first before attempting to do mainland Madagascar.

What is being counted as capital ships in context? I have 20 capital ships if the cutoff is about 20kt, and 12" guns, though I get the feeling my Cidade-class needs modernization to stay viable and they're on the budget for 1926 to have at least part of their number upgraded in a major way.

That leaves me wondering though, how much should modernization cost if the change will add 4kt and upgrade main belt armor? Would it be better just to call them a new class and build new ships to those specifications?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I personally have 110 destroyers, 36 cruisers (of which 8 are large heavy cruisers), and 114 submarines (48 of which are fairly short ranged), to back up 18 battleships, and 1 carrier. By year's end, it'd be another 4 battleships, 8 heavy cruisers added, along with 16 destroyer leaders and 16 minelayers/sweepers. In general the ratio of destroyers/cruisers to battleships is rather small and some of the more daring cruiser/destroyer commanders could charge in close and shoot off lots of torps and do quite a bit of damage. A broken battleline can then be chopped apart piece meal.

[Norade]

I have 26 capital ships, 49 cruisers, 80 destroyers, 70 submarines. My cruisers are rather larger than most though and carry heavy torpedo loads.

[Ryan Thunder]

If that fleet does come out my TWENTY FOUR freakin battleships crush them before pounding the forts to rubble. Your cruiser subs are hunted down by my cruisers and destroyers while my own subs are busy laying a trap for any of your fleet units. If that fleet doesn't come out then my TWENTY FOUR freakin battleships pound your forts to rubble and then wait for your fleet to engage while my cruisers...so on and so on. Dude I have you so ridiculously out gunned it isn't even funny.

On second thought I'm somewhat at a loss for an explanation as to why a single point appears to be the difference between parity and nigh-invulnerability.

[Norade]

What do you consider parity? NF5 has 600 extra KT to work with over NF3, and NF4 has to make serious cuts to keep surface ship parity with NF5 nations.

[Ryan Thunder]

Oh, its not that. I built a shitload of defensive monitors and decently-armed cruisers and it turns out they're worth fuck all if my opponent has even a marginally higher NF rating.

He's blockading the canal and running amphibious landings, and apparently there's nothing I can do about it, which has to be horseshit because I only rate one lower than him.

[Norade]

Can you link me to those monitors?

[Ryan Thunder]

Valiente, Columbian monitor laid down 1920

Displacement:
7 535 t light; 7 937 t standard; 8 750 t normal; 9 400 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(410.11 ft / 410.11 ft) x 65.62 ft x (21.33 / 22.56 ft)
(125.00 m / 125.00 m) x 20.00 m x (6.50 / 6.88 m)

Armament:
6 - 9.84" / 250 mm 60.0 cal guns - 522.19lbs / 236.86kg shells, 100 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1920 Model
3 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
12 - 3.94" / 100.0 mm 45.0 cal guns - 30.77lbs / 13.96kg shells, 200 per gun
Quick firing guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1920 Model
6 x Twin mounts on sides, forward deck aft
4 - 3.15" / 80.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 17.11lbs / 7.76kg shells, 200 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1920 Model
4 x Single mounts on sides, aft deck forward
16 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 0.26lbs / 0.12kg shells, 2 000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1920 Model
16 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 3 575 lbs / 1 622 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 246.06 ft / 75.00 m 9.71 ft / 2.96 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Upper: 3.94" / 100 mm 246.06 ft / 75.00 m 8.01 ft / 2.44 m
Main Belt covers 92 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
1.97" / 50 mm 246.06 ft / 75.00 m 18.50 ft / 5.64 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 65.62 ft / 20.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 7.87" / 200 mm 3.94" / 100 mm 7.87" / 200 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 4.92" / 125 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 3.94" / 100 mm, Aft 3.94" / 100 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion generators,
Electric motors, 2 shafts, 14 821 shp / 11 057 Kw = 20.00 kts
Range 6 000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1 463 tons

Complement:
452 - 588

Cost:
£1.815 million / $7.261 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 035 tons, 11.8 %
- Guns: 1 035 tons, 11.8 %
Armour: 3 371 tons, 38.5 %
- Belts: 973 tons, 11.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 332 tons, 3.8 %
- Armament: 688 tons, 7.9 %
- Armour Deck: 1 306 tons, 14.9 %
- Conning Towers: 72 tons, 0.8 %
Machinery: 518 tons, 5.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2 611 tons, 29.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1 215 tons, 13.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
14 607 lbs / 6 626 Kg = 30.6 x 9.8 " / 250 mm shells or 3.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.14
Metacentric height 3.4 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 14.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.72
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.65

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and a cruiser stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.534 / 0.542
Length to Beam Ratio: 6.25 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 20.25 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 43
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 23.59 ft / 7.19 m, 19.29 ft / 5.88 m
- Forward deck: 40.00 %, 19.29 ft / 5.88 m, 14.99 ft / 4.57 m
- Aft deck: 20.00 %, 14.99 ft / 4.57 m, 14.99 ft / 4.57 m
- Quarter deck: 20.00 %, 14.99 ft / 4.57 m, 14.99 ft / 4.57 m
- Average freeboard: 17.06 ft / 5.20 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 63.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 128.0 %
Waterplane Area: 18 495 Square feet or 1 718 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 103 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 126 lbs/sq ft or 614 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.91
- Longitudinal: 2.42
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

[Norade]

Those shells aren't even going to hurt 8"+ of armor at any reasonable range and he can shell you from pretty well where ever he pleases with his 16" and 17" guns on his larger ships. Even 12" guns will rip you up faster than you can deal damage in most cases due to your armor. Basically it comes down to a 4x3 12" ship versus a 2x3 10" armed ship and we all know who wins that one.

Simply put all of those 8kt ships couldn't win against 1 faster 45kt ship let alone a fleet. In the end you made a gamble with your navy and lost, that is really all I can say.

[Ryan Thunder]

Whoever led me to believe that smaller guns and a smaller fleet were sufficient shall now have hot pokers forcibly inserted into his anus.

You also increase the probability of landing hits with more guns firing. Fast ships means (large) cruisers in most cases, and those fight mostly against other cruisers or destroyers. A 10-12'' shell will kill a (normal) cruiser performing a torpedo attack just as well as a 16'' shell most of the time, but a ship will be able to carry way more 12'' than 16''. It also works the other way, a faster ship will have to maneuver to evade due to its lack of armour, ruining its chances for precise firing. More guns will increase the probability to hit anything again, even for if each shell shell weighs less. It's better to land an e.g. 21cm shell out of eight fired than missing with heavier 35cm guns because you carry only four of them.

Raesene, your time has come.

Well, that, or he's right and my smaller boats blast the shit out of Wilkins' whilst he struggles to hit anything.

I somehow suspect that this isn't going to be the interpretation that the mods take, however.

[Lonestar]

And of course, as usual, your fake ongoing war with Lonestar that made your nations permanently mobilized North-Korea like garrison state shitholes (invented purely so you could rationalize being a militaristic garrison state, as you always do), means nothing when it comes to dogpiling. Thanks, I already recognized the usual Shep.

With my active army of 2 million that brings me to a whole half a million more than you have on the active roster Stas. And I have a much bigger population(per Steve, around 260mil). And I have an actual history of routine bloody warfare against a major external enemy and numerous internal ones. And yet, ultimately not a HUGE disparity in size between my army and that of the peaceful communist paradise. I forget, who is the militaristic garrison state again?

[Lonestar]

A similar thing happened in Kenya when night fell there a few hours later: three battleships and fifteen destroyers left the harbor making a minimal fuss, leaving behind only a handful of small patrol boats.

Someone(a mod) needs to have the Union Navy spreadsheet cleaned up, because Siege is interpreting the County CAs(which have morphed from the Momonth Armored Crusiers in the primary OOB listing) as BBs because, well, Karmic stuck a BB there. Myself and Thanas both view those as CAs based upon how the spreadsheet is currently arranged.

[Thanas]

A similar thing happened in Kenya when night fell there a few hours later: three battleships and fifteen destroyers left the harbor making a minimal fuss, leaving behind only a handful of small patrol boats.

Someone(a mod) needs to have the Union Navy spreadsheet cleaned up, because Siege is interpreting the County CAs(which have morphed from the Momonth Armored Crusiers in the primary OOB listing) as BBs because, well, Karmic stuck a BB there. Myself and Thanas both view those as CAs based upon how the spreadsheet is currently arranged.

We do, because they are listed as CA in the "fleet makeup" tables and because they are even called the Monmouth class then. Which were heavy cruisers.

[CmdrWilkens]

Because he's an NF4 nation that kinda skimped on destroyers, looking at his OrBat.

My forts can hold off battlefleet-scale attacks. That is what they were intended to do when I decided to put them where they are, and that is not an unreasonable capability for a coastal fortress in this age if Thanas is to be believed...

If I haven't described them properly, then I'll have to fix that. That's not me cheating, that's just how they were intended to be, and that's how such installations were described to me.

In any event, either the 2nd Army is dead, or they called off their assault, or they assaulted further away. One does not simply walk into that region.

30km away from a land based fort is either out of range of those guns, or it at the extreme limits of their range while my BB fleet can easily suppress their fire by counter-battery. Do you think I just waltzed up to the coast and landed with no regards to your forts? I knew you listed major forts at either end of the canal which is why I struck at Punta Gorda instead of Colon itself since I figured a proper sighting of your fort would be around Sherman which is a good 20 mi as the crow flies from my landing zone. Some of your guns could reach that BUT you have no means of observing the fall of shot. Discounting terrain features that might obscure (and they are plentiful here) you are not going to be able to see anything under 10' tall at that range unless you've got observation cupolas that are just begging to have been shot away by the aforementioned BB fleet.

In other words your fort can engage the troops or the fleet and maybe hold off one or the other but not both at the same time. I accounted for your fort and with a 10 roll my troops would be ashore under even the most murderous fire.

[Ryan Thunder]

<snip>

Alright, sure.

In other words your fort can engage the troops or the fleet and maybe hold off one or the other but not both at the same time. I accounted for your fort and with a 10 roll my troops would be ashore under even the most murderous fire.

Goddamn it. The whole point of that fortress was to make an assault on the canal unreasonably difficult.

But of course you have utter naval superiority and just happily bypass it.

Hey, mods, I'm not getting my points worth out of my navy because I followed the advice of a certain idiot. I will redesign my monitors with 350 mm guns and post the updated designs shortly.

Is this acceptable?

[Ma Deuce]

What is being counted as capital ships in context? I have 20 capital ships if the cutoff is about 20kt, and 12" guns, though I get the feeling my Cidade-class needs modernization to stay viable and they're on the budget for 1926 to have at least part of their number upgraded in a major way.

"Captial ship" is a matter of role and of relative, rather than absolute size. They are the ships that are designed to be the centerpieces of your formation in a fleet engagement. If you're a large navy then that means battleships and battlecruisers; for a smaller navy, a 10kt cruiser might be a captial ship in the absence of anything larger. Some big expensive ships might not count as captial ships depending on their role, such as "large cruisers", given that they are not intended to be used in fleet engagements in any way.

My capships vary greatly in size, from the new 45kt beasts nearing completion, my two old 15kt 12-inch gunned ships that happen to be my very first dreadnoughts. Being still fast enough to keep pace with my newer battleships, I keep them in the battleline as it gives the enemy two extra targets to shoot at. Until I see fit to remove those old stalwarts from the battleline and relegate them to coastal defence duties, they will still be considered captial ships.

Hey, mods, I'm not getting my points worth out of my navy because I followed the advice of a certain idiot. I will redesign my monitors with 350 mm guns and post the updated designs shortly.

It's not his fault you didn't use up all the tonnage allotted to you, leaving you with only about half as much as Wilkins rather than three-quarters. That extra 280kt could have been used to get yourself even more submarines or a significant number of destroyers/large torpedo boats that could act as a force multiplier for your monitors, spamming his battleline and overwhelming his thin screens: But you didn't do that. You'd probably still lose in the end, but Wilkins would almost certainly lose more than a few of his battlewagons in the process.

I'm not about to tell the mods how to run the show, but were I in their shoes I wouldn't allow you to simply redesign your existing ships this far into the game just because you were given bad advice at the start (though I might be amenable to allowing some extra light combatants like MTBs). You've already made your bed, so I suggest you put those submarine cruisers of yours to maximum effective use against his trade and fleet units. Contrary to Wilkins' claims he will have no easy time hunting them down with only 29 destroyers (not that destroyers in this era can really "hunt down" submarines much at all), so that's one good card you have to play. Additionally, those Vindicator-class cruisers should make for some potent commerce raiders. There isn't much else I can suggest in the near term, except that you start churning out hordes of motor torpedo boats and maybe some destroyers (however the latter would require a year or so before entering service). You could also ask around to see if anyone is willing to sell you some of their older warships.

[Steve]

Once again.... when you mobilize for war you do not have to activate reserves in the same way you do during peacetime. Peacetime activation is to make them standing units, which requires training and thus consumes material. When you mobilize for war you're just activating them for combat and they go straight to the barracks and railroads for deployment.

[Steve]

Whoever led me to believe that smaller guns and a smaller fleet were sufficient shall now have hot pokers forcibly inserted into his anus.

You also increase the probability of landing hits with more guns firing. Fast ships means (large) cruisers in most cases, and those fight mostly against other cruisers or destroyers. A 10-12'' shell will kill a (normal) cruiser performing a torpedo attack just as well as a 16'' shell most of the time, but a ship will be able to carry way more 12'' than 16''. It also works the other way, a faster ship will have to maneuver to evade due to its lack of armour, ruining its chances for precise firing. More guns will increase the probability to hit anything again, even for if each shell shell weighs less. It's better to land an e.g. 21cm shell out of eight fired than missing with heavier 35cm guns because you carry only four of them.

Raesene, your time has come.

Well, that, or he's right and my smaller boats blast the shit out of Wilkins' whilst he struggles to hit anything.

I somehow suspect that this isn't going to be the interpretation that the mods take, however.

To be fair he was talking about fighting other cruisers and destroyers, not battlewagons.

[Ryan Thunder]

Hey, mods, I'm not getting my points worth out of my navy because I followed the advice of a certain idiot. I will redesign my monitors with 350 mm guns and post the updated designs shortly.

It's not his fault you didn't use up all the tonnage allotted to you, leaving you with only about half as much as Wilkins rather than three-quarters. That extra 280kt could have been used to get yourself even more submarines or a significant number of destroyers/large torpedo boats that could act as a force multiplier for your monitors, spamming his battleline and overwhelming his thin screens: But you didn't do that. You'd probably still lose in the end, but Wilkins would almost certainly lose more than a few of his battlewagons in the process.

Yes, I decided to have a fleet so modern that I couldn't actually produce all of it by the game start year. That was my decision and I take full responsibility for it. I'm not asking to change production numbers or anything.

My fleet strength remains the same, however, the Valiente design trades the current 6 × 250L60 guns (two superfiring) for 3 × 350L50 guns (one superfiring, 650 kg shells) and the second battery for 6 × 100L45 QF guns (15 kg shells), and increases the range by 500 nmi.

I'm modifying the existing Valiente design in such a way that it will remain at the same tonnage and thus still have been produced in the same numbers that it was originally.

I'm not about to tell the mods how to run the show, but were I in their shoes I wouldn't allow you to simply redesign your existing ships this far into the game just because you were given bad advice at the start (though I might be amenable to allowing some extra light combatants like MTBs).

Sure. I guess that next time around I'll just divine whether or not the advice I'm recieving on subjects I know little to nothing about is any good before implementing it. Awesome solution, huh? Perhaps I should consult an oracle instead?

You've already made your bed, so I suggest you put those submarine cruisers of yours to maximum effective use against his trade and fleet units.

I was planning on doing something like that. I'll PM you for a little further advice on that, if you don't mind.

Contrary to Wilkins' claims he will have no easy time hunting them down with only 29 destroyers (not that destroyers in this era can really "hunt down" submarines much at all), so that's one good card you have to play. Additionally, those Vindicator-class cruisers should make for some potent commerce raiders. There isn't much else I can suggest in the near term, except that you start churning out hordes of motor torpedo boats and maybe some destroyers (however the latter would require a year or so before entering service). You could also ask around to see if anyone is willing to sell you some of their older warships.

I will do that.

Once again.... when you mobilize for war you do not have to activate reserves in the same way you do during peacetime. Peacetime activation is to make them standing units, which requires training and thus consumes material. When you mobilize for war you're just activating them for combat and they go straight to the barracks and railroads for deployment.

So how fast do I get them, then?

[Steve]

You have max infrastructure, so I'd say you should be entirely mobilized in the space of 2-3 weeks, going by the historic example of France and Germany in 1914.

[Raesene]

Whoever led me to believe that smaller guns and a smaller fleet were sufficient shall now have hot pokers forcibly inserted into his anus.

You also increase the probability of landing hits with more guns firing. Fast ships means (large) cruisers in most cases, and those fight mostly against other cruisers or destroyers. A 10-12'' shell will kill a (normal) cruiser performing a torpedo attack just as well as a 16'' shell most of the time, but a ship will be able to carry way more 12'' than 16''. It also works the other way, a faster ship will have to maneuver to evade due to its lack of armour, ruining its chances for precise firing. More guns will increase the probability to hit anything again, even for if each shell shell weighs less. It's better to land an e.g. 21cm shell out of eight fired than missing with heavier 35cm guns because you carry only four of them.

Raesene, your time has come.

Well, that, or he's right and my smaller boats blast the shit out of Wilkins' whilst he struggles to hit anything.

I somehow suspect that this isn't going to be the interpretation that the mods take, however.

We can meet at dawn for the duel - do you prefer pistols or sabres ?

I doubt your original (or now revised) monitor with 4-6 35cm guns would have been effective against battleships too. A gun duel between ships weighing less than 20% than a battleship will lose in most cases. Against those, you'd use minefields to deny them approaches, submarines, torpedo boats, destroyers and torpedo bombers.
But don't understimate monitors, btw - the old Brandenburg-class ships bought by Turkey in 1912 caused some difficulties for the Entente at Gallipoli because they had firing position where they couldn't be seen until seaplanes and observation balloons guided the counterbattery fire. Yours can also stay within the canal itself (causing severe difficulties for any attacker if he sinks them there !) and fire at troops advancing - 25cm guns firing at troops should have more effect than against battleships.

By the way, can the heavy ships even get close enough to the coast hit anything ? I can't find any information about sea depth in the region. Shallow draft allows your monitor to operate much closer to the coast than battleships, maybe hiding in estuaries, small bays etc and firing at targets of opportunity.

[Thanas]

Once again.... when you mobilize for war you do not have to activate reserves in the same way you do during peacetime. Peacetime activation is to make them standing units, which requires training and thus consumes material. When you mobilize for war you're just activating them for combat and they go straight to the barracks and railroads for deployment.

Oh f*ck. Okay, I will modify my build queue accordingly.

EDIT: On second thought, I won't.

[Siege]

Well, since Karmic was apparently insane enough to have his entire fleet include not a single bloody battleship, and I don't feel like spending much effort editing my previous post concerning the warships, I hereby amend said last IC post on the subject of the Dutch fleet to include no BBs, every single CA and every single predreadnought (the pantserschepen). These ships will make best speed for the Dutch colonies in Western Africa -- but since the orders are top-secret you probably won't know that for a while (for all you know they've been ordered to make a suicide dash into the English channel, after all).