2014 STGOD OOC Commentary Thread 1

[Steve]

Yet we can afford more of those since we don't have to spend cash on keeping an old ship active.

[Simon_Jester]

I must be one of the few that has altogther scrapped all the battleships and big gun cruisers and gone for rocketry.

I don't think we're that few. I have no battleships, or guns bigger than 155mm on escort ships.

Sure hope not. It's like a circus of freaks out there.

The Umerians would probably limit themselves to 6" or 155mm guns if it weren't for the fact that their artillery calibers are weird for historical reasons. The 180mm gun is their traditional land-based heavy artillery caliber, so it's what they had tooling to equip, so they put it in turrets on the Guard-the-North-class atomic rocket cruisers.

Since the Guard-the-Norths weigh forty thousand tons, an armament of 180mm guns isn't exactly impressive or 'big;' in objective terms the atomic rocket cruisers probably have a lower weight of broadside than most interwar treaty cruisers from real life. They shoot faster and more accurately using modern technology, but it's still not a "big-gun" ship as we traditionally understand the term.

Look, I get that people are invested in having a large navy as a deterrent to other players getting fancy, or simply because it makes sense for their nations to have one, and I don't mind this per se. But if this is going to turn into an SDNW#3 style naval arms race where people obsess endlessly over warship minutiae then the moderatorship will be forced to put hard caps on carrier numbers to put a stop to that. I'm guessing nobody wants that, so kindly work a reasonable and acceptable solution out amongst yourselves.

I am so happy to hear you say that.

I hope my three/four (relatively small) carriers (with not-stellar fighters to fly off them) and five heavy missile ships aren't part of the problem; if they become such I'd be willing to engage in an arms reduction. I hope the naval big boys are prepared to do the same; I'd like to think that of them because they're all people I respect.

If I might lay out an opinion:

I think we need to have an open discussion about this, in which we list all the highly prosperous 'major' nations that are trying to have world-class navies (the ones who want like nine or ten carriers), and do some considerable thinking about why. So far the big-navy people I've heard of are:

Thanas (who wants... I'm honestly not sure how many operational carriers anymore, 9, 10, 13?)
Steve (who wanted 9+1* at times, and has also said he's scaling down to 6+1)
Beowulf (who wants I think 9, but I'm not sure where he said so, I'm getting this secondhand from Thanas)
RogueIce (who wants I think 9)

Now, large navies are a major strategic interest for all these people. That is worthy of respect. So we need to think about who is spending roughly how much money to make it happen, and whether it's reasonable for the nations in question to get highly competitive. After all, none of these countries have any history of fighting each other as far as I can remember, and many of them were allies within living memory.



*9+1 means one of 10 carriers is permanently in servicing at all times as I recall. Realistically any large nuclear carrier force is going to have one carrier down at all times because refueling the nuclear reactor is very difficult and takes one or two years in drydock.

[Beowulf]

Sure hope not. It's like a circus of freaks out there.

The Umerians would probably limit themselves to 6" or 155mm guns if it weren't for the fact that their artillery calibers are weird for historical reasons. The 180mm gun is their traditional land-based heavy artillery caliber, so it's what they had tooling to equip, so they put it in turrets on the Guard-the-North-class atomic rocket cruisers.

Since the Guard-the-Norths weigh forty thousand tons, an armament of 180mm guns isn't exactly impressive or 'big;' in objective terms the atomic rocket cruisers probably have a lower weight of broadside than most interwar treaty cruisers from real life. They shoot faster and more accurately using modern technology, but it's still not a "big-gun" ship as we traditionally understand the term.

See, this makes sense, of sorts. I'd actually be willing to say that 8" guns makes perfect sense. The USN even evaluated the idea of sticking 8" guns onto destroyers. They didn't actually do so, since they couldn't solve the accuracy problems... But sticking a pair of twin turrets at the bow of a 40kton "atomic rocket cruiser" does actually make sense to me.

Look, I get that people are invested in having a large navy as a deterrent to other players getting fancy, or simply because it makes sense for their nations to have one, and I don't mind this per se. But if this is going to turn into an SDNW#3 style naval arms race where people obsess endlessly over warship minutiae then the moderatorship will be forced to put hard caps on carrier numbers to put a stop to that. I'm guessing nobody wants that, so kindly work a reasonable and acceptable solution out amongst yourselves.

I am so happy to hear you say that.

I hope my three/four (relatively small) carriers (with not-stellar fighters to fly off them) and five heavy missile ships aren't part of the problem; if they become such I'd be willing to engage in an arms reduction. I hope the naval big boys are prepared to do the same; I'd like to think that of them because they're all people I respect.

If I might lay out an opinion:

I think we need to have an open discussion about this, in which we list all the highly prosperous 'major' nations that are trying to have world-class navies (the ones who want like nine or ten carriers), and do some considerable thinking about why. So far the big-navy people I've heard of are:

Thanas (who wants... I'm honestly not sure how many operational carriers anymore, 9, 10, 13?)
Steve (who wanted 9+1* at times, and has also said he's scaling down to 6+1)
Beowulf (who wants I think 9, but I'm not sure where he said so, I'm getting this secondhand from Thanas)
RogueIce (who wants I think 9)

Now, large navies are a major strategic interest for all these people. That is worthy of respect. So we need to think about who is spending roughly how much money to make it happen, and whether it's reasonable for the nations in question to get highly competitive. After all, none of these countries have any history of fighting each other as far as I can remember, and many of them were allies within living memory.

*9+1 means one of 10 carriers is permanently in servicing at all times as I recall. Realistically any large nuclear carrier force is going to have one carrier down at all times because refueling the nuclear reactor is very difficult and takes one or two years in drydock.

My listing of 9 active carriers is the sole number actually done on my orbat. There'd probably be a 10th in refueling and overhaul at any given time, and so stripped of the vast majority of personnel. I'd be willing to accept a cap, if we can agree on an in game reason for such a cap. A Naval Treaty, like the Washington and London ones, but on carrier numbers instead of battleships.

[Simon_Jester]

See, this makes sense, of sorts. I'd actually be willing to say that 8" guns makes perfect sense. The USN even evaluated the idea of sticking 8" guns onto destroyers. They didn't actually do so, since they couldn't solve the accuracy problems... But sticking a pair of twin turrets at the bow of a 40kton "atomic rocket cruiser" does actually make sense to me.

If they'd had to choose between 8" and 6" they would probably have gone six-inch. As it was they had to choose between, roughly speaking, 107mm (land-based field artillery caliber), 130mm (naval light artillery caliber) and 180mm (land-based heavy artillery caliber). Or making up a completely new gun not compatible with any of their existing ammunition.

So they basically wound up taking the design for a self-propelled, quick-firing 180mm howitzer that had been rejected for excessive weight and stuck them in turrets. I don't know exactly how many or if they're doubles or triples or whatever, but there it is.

My listing of 9 active carriers is the sole number actually done on my orbat. There'd probably be a 10th in refueling and overhaul at any given time, and so stripped of the vast majority of personnel. I'd be willing to accept a cap, if we can agree on an in game reason for such a cap. A Naval Treaty, like the Washington and London ones, but on carrier numbers instead of battleships.

Well, as I see it, we have at least two major powers (Cascadia and Rheinland) that have strategic need for very strong navies, but for separate reasons would want to limit the naval budget: Cascadia because they have a powerful land-based rival to glare at which has invaded them in the past, and Rheinland because the country was economically devastated by the War and has only begun to recover in the present day.

It would be to neither country's advantage to get into a carrier building race, and this state of affairs has been true for a long time.

[Skywalker_T-65]

At the moment, my navy has 2+1 Small-ish CVNs (again, roughly the de Gaulle ). A major striking force we are not. That's an in-character decision though...Arcadian navy is very much a home-defense force, where land-based Aircraft are supposed to pick up the slack.

EDIT: And the aircraft in question (both on and off the ships) are not the most stellar things in the world. No 5th gen here.

[TimothyC]

I don't think we're that few. I have no battleships, or guns bigger than 155mm on escort ships.

Sure hope not. It's like a circus of freaks out there.

Hey, I've got one ship with 12" guns, and it has that only because the ship has been in service for over around 60 years (Hawai'i bought two of the ships, and scrapped one of them for parts).

That said, if the replacement is a surface warship, 155mm is the likely gun size limit.

[Siege]

As a clarification to those of us who are new and who might not be aware of this: previous SDNW games had the rule that to have one carrier out at sea at all times you need three total. One would be 'out' whilst the other two are 'in the shop' being overhauled, so they would rotate through the docks. So when someone says they have nine supercarriers total, this means they'll have 'only' three on the seas at any given time.

That is something to keep in mind in case you're wondering why people are deploying eye-wateringly high numbers of surface combatants.

Now mind you players are absolutely free to work out their carrier rotations if they want, but it's not a requirement. Firstly because some nations might have one or two carriers but not feel compelled to keep a ship out at sea all the time so where does that leave them in the grand scheme of things? And secondly because in my ideal world we can all do what we like and what I personally like is certainly not a lot of spreadsheeting.

I would prefer to treat big navies like we said we'd treat big points states: the bigger your navy, the more strict we - the moderators - will be in what you are and are not allowed to do with it. Whereas smaller states are much more free to do what they like. Practical example: if you have a tiny navy with one 'hero carrier' that conveniently shows up all the time, good on you. You won't hear me complain about how it should be in the shop for X amount of time. Conversely if you have a giant navy already and you're rushing even more carriers out in a way that looks like you might be powergaming then you might find your ships suddenly suffering very unfortunate and highly cataclysmic reactor problems.

But if we really need to slap rules on this, we can do that too. Basically we can make this as simple or as complex as y'all want. Me, I'd prefer to keep it simple and fun. It's up to you.

[Eternal_Freedom]

In Orion's case, one of our three carriers is at sea, one in overhaul and one in "extended readiness," basically it's ready to sail at a day's notice or so. That way if necessary we can surge it and it's group to sea and have a two-carrier force with a double-load of escorts, but that's not a sustainable option.

Of our battleships, we are generally able to keep 2 of the 5 at sea with one in refit and two in readiness. Our subs follow roughly the same pattern: somewhere between 1/3rd and 1/2 are at sea whilst the others are in dock.

[madd0ct0r]

can anyone point to a place where I can estimate what equipment I've got from my known annual military budget?

[Esquire]

I'd suggest picking a with a similar standard of living and level of militarization to the one you want and just changing the proportions to whatever's appropriate. Wikipedia's good enough for that level of research, anyway.

[Siege]

can anyone point to a place where I can estimate what equipment I've got from my known annual military budget?

I think that would be going about it the wrong way because the answer can be any number of things. Instead you should be asking yourself first and foremost what your military is set up to do. And then get stuff that lets you do that. Don't worry about the cost until you're hitting multiple carrier groups because frankly nobody would be able to tell you what anything would realistically cost in this brave new world anyway.

[The Romulan Republic]

Is Britonia's role in the creation of Corona acceptable or not? If not, what would be an acceptable alternative?

[Thanas]

My listing of 9 active carriers is the sole number actually done on my orbat. There'd probably be a 10th in refueling and overhaul at any given time, and so stripped of the vast majority of personnel. I'd be willing to accept a cap, if we can agree on an in game reason for such a cap. A Naval Treaty, like the Washington and London ones, but on carrier numbers instead of battleships.

So It is actually 10 active carriers then, as I would expect that my 9 carriers include those in refueling and overhaul as well.

Thanas (who wants... I'm honestly not sure how many operational carriers anymore, 9, 10, 13?)

I haven't decided yet. At some point it gets silly if I focus too much on carriers, but considering I am about the only one who has released what precisely he spends on the GDP while everybody else has not done so I will reserve the right to revise my numbers. It is kinda funny how everybody is suddenly using my Orbat as a baseline.

Rheinland might live with having only 9 active carriers considering we got the large carrier reserve force (the 4 CVNs and a lot of older conventional ones), but I will have to do some more research how quickly a CVN in reserve could get activated in time of war. Any help on that would be appreciated.

In light of the recent numbers by Steve on his air force I will also probably scale my air force up, as we got about the same number of planes while he also has strategic bombers included in that. The money saved on strategic bombers will go to larger Interceptor forces.

In any case, I will be gone until the 30th and would appreciate getting a chance to put my input on any proposed cap then.

[TimothyC]

Rheinland might live with having only 9 active carriers considering we got the large carrier reserve force (the 4 CVNs and a lot of older conventional ones), but I will have to do some more research how quickly a CVN in reserve could get activated in time of war. Any help on that would be appreciated.

Activation time per CVN is not less than 900 days (based on activation time estimated for Oriskany in the 1980s). In a time of war you might get that down to 450 days. Activations would have to be conducted sequentially (discerning why this is and what other effects are made by this cause I leave as an exercise for the reader*). Also, keeping CVs (much less CVNs) in good reserve condition would likely cost a significant fraction of the cost of keeping them active (seriously, a CVN in reserve is likely to cost a low single digit fraction of an active one).

In light of the recent numbers by Steve on his air force I will also probably scale my air force up, as we got about the same number of planes while he also has strategic bombers included in that. The money saved on strategic bombers will go to larger Interceptor forces.

After procurement a wing of fighters costs the same to maintain as a wing of bombers. Over the life of the wing it is this continuous cost that is dominant, not the initial procurement.

*One Internet Cookie for the first correct guess.

[Thanas]

Rheinland might live with having only 9 active carriers considering we got the large carrier reserve force (the 4 CVNs and a lot of older conventional ones), but I will have to do some more research how quickly a CVN in reserve could get activated in time of war. Any help on that would be appreciated.

Activation time per CVN is not less than 900 days (based on activation time estimated for Oriskany in the 1980s). In a time of war you might get that down to 450 days. Activations would have to be conducted sequentially (discerning why this is and what other effects are made by this cause I leave as an exercise for the reader*). Also, keeping CVs (much less CVNs) in good reserve condition would likely cost a significant fraction of the cost of keeping them active (seriously, a CVN in reserve is likely to cost a low single digit fraction of an active one).

Oriskany was Essex class and had been inactive for several decades, so I fail to see how she could be any sort of baseline for a CVN. She also had no airwing. None of that applies here. I am talking about activating the reactor, restocking her with fresh produce (can't eat canned food) and getting fuel onboard. How long does that take?

As to bombers - right, we'd have purchased more fighters. Also, fighters need less crew.

[TimothyC]

Oriskany was Essex class and had been inactive for several decades. She also had no airwing. None of that applies here. I am talking about activating the reactor, restocking her with fresh produce (can't eat canned food) and getting fuel onboard. How long does that take?

Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh harder.

To maintain a ship in the condition you just described would cost not less than three fourths of the cost of an operational ship, and even then activation for the CVNs would take not less than 600 days. Each. Sequentially. Why? Because refueling work means cutting the deck open, same as on a RCOH. That sets the base for how long. Start thinking through what I've just said and the implications of it.

Pre-post edit: Actually, I've dug up my source on Oriskany and I was low balling it. Thirty-Six months (1080 days) to bring her back. That was after just five years of being inactive (seriously, she was Decommissioned on 30 September 1976, the letter is dated April of 1981).

As to bombers - right, we'd have purchased more fighters. Also, fighters need less crew.

Doesn't matter. A wing of fighters costs the same as a wing of bombers (of the same level. F-100s vs. B-52s, F-22s vs. B-2s, ect.)

[Siege]

The thing I said earlier about y'all working this out between yourselves remains in full effect, but maybe it's helpful if I restate a few things I said earlier:

Thirteen Nimitz-class carriers does make me raise my eyebrows though. To put it simply, if you don't plan on using those carriers, there's no point to having them. If you have them, then as one of the people who'll be expected to moderate this game I have to assume you're going to use them.

As far as I'm concerned everyone's free to have a few carriers, but they should be hugely important white elephants whose presence can shift a situation, but whose loss would be catastrophic. 'But Siege!' you may say, 'the US losing a single carrier would be catastrophic!' Yes, but this is a game and not real life, if you have more than a dozen carriers and lose one you could just dispatch another and justify it in whatever way suits your fancy. I don't want that at game start. If you really want a big carrier fleet then you can embark on a project to build it in game, and other people can develop armored ramming whales or whatever in response, and at that point the moderators will judge your ideas on their merits. But you don't get to have more than a handfull of giant supercarriers at the start, just like you don't get to have orbital death satellites.

I don't care specifically if you carrier folk settle this OOC or if you agree there's some kind of IC treaty in effect, but whatever you work out, please do it within this context. Also keep in mind that Steve and I basically told Thanas that he couldn't have more than 9 active carriers in rotation. Thanas was allowed to have his mothballed fleet; I'll happily grant Beo his long-term core refuelling 10th carrier if the same conditions apply to it and I'm open to other suggestions, but the chances we'll agree to someone having more than 9 active supercarriers are slim to minimal at best. Because I like to be consistent, and frankly what I quoted up there is simply better for the game than a situation where we can walk from Orion to Corona over the decks of one long parade of supercarriers.

[Thanas]

Oriskany was Essex class and had been inactive for several decades. She also had no airwing. None of that applies here. I am talking about activating the reactor, restocking her with fresh produce (can't eat canned food) and getting fuel onboard. How long does that take?

Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh harder.

To maintain a ship in the condition you just described would cost not less than three fourths of the cost of an operational ship, and even then activation for the CVNs would take not less than 600 days. Each. Sequentially. Why? Because refueling work means cutting the deck open, same as on a RCOH. That sets the base for how long. Start thinking through what I've just said and the implications of it.

I did not mean reactor refueling. That would be done before putting her in reserve. I meant getting aviation fuel onboard. As to your source, I am not impressed with you using the Oriskany as a baseline here, as what is being proposed in there is not the same as an activation, but a complete rebuild of the air wing and fixing up a 50 year old carrier. Meanwhile, Saratoga only cost 280 million to overhaul her, which again is not the same as reactivating a ship for combat in the time of war.

Also, what are your sources for the cost of bomber and fighter wings over the course of their lives? Personnel costs alone would suggest one to be lower than the other.

I don't care specifically if you carrier folk settle this OOC or if you agree there's some kind of IC treaty in effect, but whatever you work out, please do it within this context. Also keep in mind that Steve and I basically told Thanas that he couldn't have more than 9 active carriers in rotation. Thanas was allowed to have his mothballed fleet; I'll happily grant Beo his long-term core refuelling 10th carrier if the same conditions apply to it and I'm open to other suggestions, but the chances we'll agree to someone having more than 9 active supercarriers are slim to minimal at best. Because I like to be consistent, and frankly what I quoted up there is simply better for the game than a situation where we can walk from Orion to Corona over the decks of one long parade of supercarriers.

So basically the larger GDP doesn't matter and you'll impose 9 carriers as a hard limit?

[Eternal_Freedom]

That bit about walking from Orion to Corona brings to mind that wonderful line from The Hunt from Red October about the Soviets dropping so many sonobuoys you could walk from Greenland to Iceland to Scotland without getting their feet wet.

[TimothyC]

I did not mean reactor refueling. That would be done before putting her in reserve. I meant getting aviation fuel onboard. As to your source, I am not impressed with you using the Oriskany as a baseline here, as what is being proposed in there is not the same as an activation, but a complete rebuild of the air wing and fixing up a 50 year old carrier. Meanwhile, Saratoga only cost 280 million to overhaul her, which again is not the same as reactivating a ship for combat in the time of war.

Oh God, that's very likely the most stupid thing I've seen you type. Your 'reserve' carriers are not 'reserve', but 'active, only I'm not using them right now.' I should have known you'd try and cheat your way to a bigger force. To maintain a force in that condition would cost the same as having them in an active condition.

Also, what are your sources for the cost of bomber and fighter wings over the course of their lives? Personnel costs alone would suggest one to be lower than the other.

I don't have the sources in front of me, but the total number of personnel for any wing stays about the same no matter the number of crew on the aircraft (the 509th Bomb Wing of the USAF has 40 aircraft and about 4000 personnel).

[Thanas]

I did not mean reactor refueling. That would be done before putting her in reserve. I meant getting aviation fuel onboard. As to your source, I am not impressed with you using the Oriskany as a baseline here, as what is being proposed in there is not the same as an activation, but a complete rebuild of the air wing and fixing up a 50 year old carrier. Meanwhile, Saratoga only cost 280 million to overhaul her, which again is not the same as reactivating a ship for combat in the time of war.

Oh God, that's very likely the most stupid thing I've seen you type. Your 'reserve' carriers are not 'reserve', but 'active, only I'm not using them right now.' I should have known you'd try and cheat your way to a bigger force. To maintain a force in that condition would cost the same as having them in an active condition.

Go fuck yourself if you think I am trying to cheat anybody. I clearly outlined that I expected several months before either of them would get active in a war.

[Jub]

I'm thinking that Dreisgrond will be spending ~3.75% of their GDP on military expenses and Versahinveld will be spending ~2%. Now it's easy enough to find out what a plane or a tank costs (or even what the entire project might cost) I'm not sure how much to military I can get for the 175 Billion that Dreisgrond is spending yearly. Do we have a rule of thumb that people are using and/or does anybody have resources that can help me figure out my OOB.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Orion will be spending at least 5% of it's $5 trillion GDP. Possibly more, since various people have said that in a non-nuclear world we might spend 10%.

I have a rough idea of what forces I want to have, but I do not as yet know if that will fit into the $250-500 billion I have budgeted.

[Jub]

If that's true then I'll likely double my spending.

[Siege]

You're not required to detail your OOB. You can if you want to, but it's not a requirement. A rundown of your most significant forces (like carriers) in the broadest sense would be nice, but beyond that it's entirely optional.