Gentlemen,
The last year has been good for us. We have commissioned our first CV, as well as the last of the CVL conversions, bought torpedo bombers from the British, and made major strides in our CL design. Lalande, laid down a month ago, has a speed of 29 kts and three triple 6" turrets.
Foreign relations are relatively peaceful, although the successful rebellion of the Burmese against the British may have set off a wave of instability in the colonies of the major powers. We must be on our guard.
Our current fleet
Ships under construction
April 1922
CL Du Chayla and CVL Dupetit-Thouars finish their reconstructions. US lays down a BC. Italy commissions BC, US a DD. Dock expansion begins.
May 1922
Supermarine Skua torpedo bomber is bought from the British. CL Bugeaud begins reconstruction. BB Redoutable and CV Duquesne finish reconstructions. Our spies steal plans for Austrian CA Kaiser Karl VI. Italy lays down 2 DD. AH commissions BC, UK an AV, Japan a CL.
June 1922
CL D'Assas begins reconstruction. Our spies steal plans for Japanese CVL Chuyo and German AV Brockeswalde. Breakthrough: Superimposed B mount on CL. Italy lays down 2 DD, Japan 1 CA. Germany commissions a BB, AH a CA, US 2 DD. Design work begins on CL Pluton.
July 1922
CL Bugeaud finishes reconstruction. CLs Pluton and Coetlogon laid down. AH lays down a CA. Italy commissions 2 DD, Japan a BB, US 2 DD.
August 1922
CL D'Assas finishes her reconstruction. We buy Double gun mounts on CL from the US. The Nieuport ND.70 enters service. Italy lays down a CA and 2 DD, Japan 1 CA. Germany commissions a BC, AH a BB, US commissions 2 DD.
September 1922
October 1922
The rebellion in Burma finally ejects the British and declares independence. Breakthrough: Improved power training and elevation. Germany lays down a CL, as does the US. Germany commissions a BC and a BB, Italy a DD, Japan a CVL and a CL.
November 1922
The US occupies the Virgin Islands after turmoil there. Germany lays down a BC and a CL, Japan a CA and 3 DD, the US 1 CA. Italy commissions 2 DD. We initiate a contest for a new flying boat.
December 1922
January 1923
A rebellion breaks out in Guam. CA Kleber commissions. Breakthroughs: Partial welding, synthetic fire control computer, triple bottom. Germany lays down 2 CL, Japan an AV. Italy commissions 1 DD, US 1 CVL, 1 DD.
February 1923
Argentina inserts agitators into the Falklands to start a phony rebellion against the British. Breakthrough: Advanced design calculations. CL Lalande is reworked due to recent developments in hull design. Italy lays down a CA, Japan an AV. Germany commissions a BB, UK 2 CL.
March 1923
New docks completed. CL Lalande laid down. Germany lays down a BC, Italy commissions 2 DD.
April 1923 Sketches
Our naval architects have created a series of sketches for our next generation of warships. Our existing battleships are about to complete, and we need to select new designs for its follow-on. They also have a slate of cruisers and destroyers, and even a proposed carrier.
A straightforward development of the Republique
A battleship with 3 triples
A 12-gun BB
A new battlecruiser design, based on the Republique
A light carrier, designed to support the existing fleet
A Kleber development
A smaller light cruiser, in the Guichen tradition
A 10-gun CL derived from the Destrees
This is the design the Lalande was based on
A medium-range 12-gun CL
Another small CL, this time with 6 guns
A straightforward derivative of our existing destroyers
A ship with heavier gun armament than our current fleet
A prototype escort destroyer, to replace the existing 600-tonners
Comments
I think the decision to get another large cruiser with colonial facilities was a good one, looking at Britain's problems with its colonies. I take it colonial facilities help with this sort of thing?
Isly and Friant are getting a bit old, but I think it'll still be worth bringing them back for refits, as there are plenty of far flung places that don't require a modern cruiser. Perhaps send the Du Chaylas out in there place, and think about despatching Descartes to the Carribbean when Sully needs replacing. There are also the Chateaurenaults reaching obselescence - maybe move Protet to the Indian Ocean?
I still think we should put more focus on Destroyers with our research priorities, both so we can fit all the new ASW kit, DP guns and autocannon on board, but also so we have the best possible design available to replace all those 600 ton DDs in a few years time. We could also fill gaps in our build program with KEs, to replace the Arquebuses, and even increase the number of minesweepers available if practical.
Once the Republiques are finished we should start a new battleship, but I wouldn't mind getting a couple of improved Kleber type CAs instead of a second BB. It's tricky enough keeping up with the Germans as it is, because of their greater budget, but we still need to cover the Med. I'd like to be able to mark the Austrian CAs and Italian BCs with something cheaper than a new BB or a Nancy (and faster than a Bouvet) rather than rely too much on aircraft at this stage.
I'm still fine with putting off new carrier construction for a few more years.
It has colonial facilities because you can't refit those, and because they're fairly cheap on a ship of that size. The Guichen and follow-ons were too tight. Colonial facilities increase the effective size of the ship on foreign stations. Not sure what that does about rebellions.
I prioritized destroyers on my first play-through, but I forgot to reset that when I restarted. We did get tech from that line (superimposed B turrets on CLs) during the year.
As for the BB designs, I'll probably have a list of them up next week, as I have stuff going on and don't really have the time to play.
I've loaded up a set of sketches for ships from battleships down to destroyers.
I'd order another battleship (not sure which, can't decide between armour and firepower) and a pair of CAs as we finish the Republiques. When we do come to review carrier designs in future, perhaps switch to the 'flight installations' tab, though the light AA fit is also important information. Why did mix 3" and 4" guns on the CVL? We probably won't buy more CLs until next year, but we might be able to squeeze in a few of the small DD-23-III, which is a massive improvement over the 600 ton destroyers they'd replace.
The most recent intelligence on German battleships (somewhat outdated - from April 1918), reports their 1917 Wittelsbach class has 12 14in guns, 11in of belt armor, and a top speed of 22 knots. If they've built a newer class since then, it's the same displacement. So maybe the armor to stand up to all those 14in guns?
We have good information on the ships that have actually been completed. It's buried in the Almanac window, and I don't usually pull it, but I can bring it up and give you the numbers. It just might take a few days.
If we wanted a ship with the armour of BB-23-I, or better, but were happy to increase tonnage by up to 2,000 tons, what could we improve? Speed won't matter much, if she'll be working with the other 28kt BBs. There is presumably no real option to increase firepower, as both the 43,000 ton designs you've shown us have less armour in order to include the third turret. Could we manage a bit more deck armour?
It'll be a few days before I can check specifically, but I tried several configurations, and couldn't find an 8-gun design that actually used the extra 2,000 tons well. Deck armor is a good candidate, though.
4.5" of deck armor is expensive. To get it on a 43,000 ton design, I'd have to delete a pair of 4" guns, and I'm left with no margin at all.
As for the Germans, their latest BB is 8x16" with a 13" belt.
How about cutting a pair of 6" turrets instead? Would that leave enough of a margin? There are fewer 4" guns to start with, and our fleet will likely spend a lot of time within reach of aircraft in the Mediterranean and North sea, so I'd rather not reduce the duel-purpose battery.
I'm definitely most drawn to BB-23-I of the capital ships. The 1xBB, 2xCA plan sounds good to me, but I'd also consider 1xBB, 1xCA, 2XCL, though then we have to pick CLs...
That would definitely work, and give some margin, too. Also, given the improved TDS, there's a good case to make for cutting the anti-destroyer armament.
Plan for play:
Begin design of a variant of BB-23-I with 4.5" deck and 12 6" guns. Lay down one of that and 2 CA-23-I. We'll also start work on the 600-ton DDs. Towards the end of the year, I'll also start work on a Lalande successor.
Sounds like a good plan.
Quick comparison between the Kleber/Lalande type cruisers: Kleber is about 1.5 times the cost, lacks mines, torpedoes and colonial facilities but has better armour. The Kleber's longer ranged and harder hitting 11" will generally be superior to the more numerous 6" of the Lalande, though perhaps not against destroyers. Finally, the Kleber is a CA, while Lalande and similar cruisers will be CLs, which is important because of how the game treats different classes.
What sort of mix of these do we want, and where do cheaper CLs like the Plutons fit in?
On the Plutons, those were essentially the best CLs we could build at the time. If we wanted more than 6 guns, we had to go to wing turrets, and it was hard to get a heavier broadside even with those. We could definitely look at a smaller Lalande type ship, probably sacrificing the range, but I don't think the single-gun Pluton type is particularly useful going forward.
I was kind of grouping the cheaper designs (I and V) with the Plutons when I wrote that, and the other three (II, III, and IV) with Lalande, though I ought to have made that clear.
Play was last night. No major events, but we did commission the Republiques and the Plutons, as well as a pair of 600-ton DDEs. A new BB and 2 CAs were laid down.
I'm sort of torn on small CLs. The reason I was favoring them was that they offered basically the same firepower as a bigger CL in a cheaper package, but that's not really true now that we have turrets. On the other hand, there's still the power/numbers tradeoff to worry about.
If the hull symbol didn't matter, then I'd only build the larger CLs for colonial service. CL-23-V is about half the cost of CL-23-IV (and has half the armament) and for fleet use I'd rather have the same armament (discounting the secondary battery, AA guns, mines and torpedoes, where the two Vs would have the advantage) spread across two ships. You could afford two CL-23-IVs for about the cost of a CA and a CL-23-V, and I think the latter would generally be more useful.
However, if the game will pair up our CLs, against their CLs, and our CAs against their battlecruisers, one on one, my decision might change.
That is to say, "I’d only build the larger CLs (when we need some) for colonial service" and focus on CAs and cheap CLs instead.
One option might be a V with an extra turret. That's likely to be considerable smaller than Lalande or a similar design, and with more firepower than the existing designs. We could also look at magazine boxes, which we just unlocked.
CL-23-I has four turrets (with only 2 guns each) and is only a little more expensive than V, so that sounds workable. Three triples (like Lalande) for closer to the cost of a Pluton would give us the best of both.
I have a 5,000 ton design, 9x6″, 8x4″, pretty much like CL-23-V otherwise. Looks like a pretty good ship overall. Build time 20 months, costs 1,087/month.