WesWorld

Mexico has a very interesting strategic situation, with a true two-navy requirement and very limited (for its size) naval economy. As such buying used and refitting has become a requirement in order to fulfill its needs. The two fleets require very different ships. The Pacific fleet is built around a cruiser force capable of trade protection/disruption, with the option of serving as a scouting wing for the USN Pacific Fleet. The Gulf fleet is a destroyer-heavy littoral force, designed for close quarter combat in the restricted waters of the Gulf and Caribbean sea, its primary job would be the attrition of an invading Iberian fleet and supporting a counter-attack against Cuba.

As to the insane number of destroyers in my fleet, well it is a matter of opportunity. Warship sales only come at random times, so Mexico has taken the tactic of buying ships as they become available, even if they are not needed at that particular time. If they can't be refitted to Mexican standards the ships are placed in storage pending the availability of funds. This means I am not as dependent on future ship sales, and can replace ships as needed by refitting ones in storage. In turn buying ships has allowed Mexico to spend cash on new-built front line units like the Villas and Chapultepec.

As for pocket warships, all ships are a form of compromise and for smaller nations there is only so much you can spend. So say you only have 8k tons to spend on a light cruiser, while your enemy has 10k ton cruisers around. A balanced 8k design will be outclassed in every way by a 10k design. However, by unbalancing the design like the pocket battleships did, then you can gain some measure of advantage over a balanced 10k ship. Yes the ship will have weaknesses, but the Pocket battleships proved to be far more useful and disruptive than the balanced Hippers.

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

2. "There is nothing more expensive than doing things cheaply." This is the crux of my argument against "pocket" ships, be they pocket battleships or pocket destroyers. If you're going to spend the money, then you need to make sure you spend enough to do the job the way it ought to be done. Your enemies will not be impressed that you meet your low budget requirements. Your allies will not be impressed that they have to bail you out, either.

3. "Don't build an all-star player, build an all-star team." I basically do this by identifying what the navy's mission is, who their enemies are, and what is demanded by the nation's political requirements in order to retain security. Every ship design theorized and constructed has to have a place in these requirements: if it doesn't, then it's not worth building. I also forecast my plans several years ahead, at least as a sort of skeleton on which to build.

These are two very important points that any player, particularly a player of a smaller nation, must keep in mind.

However, both must be tempered by the realities of the available budget; the "all-star team" has to fit the 'salary cap' of a nation's industrial production, so the nation might have to economize its construction in some respects. A few tons saved on a particular design is not good economics; if the plan for the "all-star team" is far above the available budget, neither is such a plan.

Also, players will envision - rightly or wrongly - different designs to fulfill the idea of "do[ing] the job the way it ought to be done". This can account for large variations in size, tonnage, armament and/or performance. Framing "the job the way it ought to be done" is a valid part of the creative process that is part and parcel of Wesworld.

Quoted from "Desertfox"

Mexico has a very interesting strategic situation, with a true two-navy requirement and very limited (for its size) naval economy. As such buying used and refitting has become a requirement in order to fulfill its needs. The two fleets require very different ships. The Pacific fleet is built around a cruiser force capable of trade protection/disruption, with the option of serving as a scouting wing for the USN Pacific Fleet. The Gulf fleet is a destroyer-heavy littoral force, designed for close quarter combat in the restricted waters of the Gulf and Caribbean sea, its primary job would be the attrition of an invading Iberian fleet and supporting a counter-attack against Cuba.

As to the insane number of destroyers in my fleet, well it is a matter of opportunity. Warship sales only come at random times, so Mexico has taken the tactic of buying ships as they become available, even if they are not needed at that particular time. If they can't be refitted to Mexican standards the ships are placed in storage pending the availability of funds. This means I am not as dependent on future ship sales, and can replace ships as needed by refitting ones in storage. In turn buying ships has allowed Mexico to spend cash on new-built front line units like the Villas and Chapultepec.

The Mexican approach to forming its current fleet is certainly unique, but how it might apply to other nations is open to debate. Few small nations have two coasts to defend against the same enemy. It also shows how a nation might acquire its fleet opportunistically by purchase. However, it does mean that all things being equal the vessels of the Mexican Navy will be older than probable opponents, not necessarily capable of concerted action (even after refitting), and certainly subject to disparities of performance. Certainly it is far larger thatn it might otherwise sustain.

Is this a desirable approach for other small nations? Wesworld history has shown that few nations have consistently followed a similar path. If part of the pleasure of the game is derived from designing one's own warships wholesale purchase from abroad would seem to obviate that element of the game.

Actually I think that the advantage of buying used is that it allows a smaller nation to design and build specific warships without sacrificing its fleet. For example there is no way Mexico would have been able to have Chapultepec built, had it not bought secondhand destroyers. I have been able to spend on such oddities as paddlewheel carriers, precisely because of wholesale purchases. But yeah, I do agree that the rest of the small nations do have more flexibility to build, not having as large of a requirement as the Mexican Navy.

Quoted from "Desertfox"

Actually I think that the advantage of buying used is that it allows a smaller nation to design and build specific warships without sacrificing its fleet. For example there is no way Mexico would have been able to have Chapultepec built, had it not bought secondhand destroyers. I have been able to spend on such oddities as paddlewheel carriers, precisely because of wholesale purchases. But yeah, I do agree that the rest of the small nations do have more flexibility to build, not having as large of a requirement as the Mexican Navy.

One of the consequences the choices made by Mexico in developing its fleet is the wholly inadequate shore establishment and infrastructure that stands behind the sea-going element. The single base on the Pacific coast, Acapulco, has only a dock and a few small slips; the major base on the Caribbean coast, Veracruz, can only handle cruisers. The lack of facilities greatly limits Mexico's ability to repair battle damage to any of its units.

To be realistic, any small nation needs to keep its fleet afloat in some meaningful relation to its infrastructure; this is a factor players cannot overlook.

That is true and unfortunately not much can be done as infrastructure is very expensive. However, there is an advantage in having more ships than you can man and support. In wartime Mexico would pull ships from the reserve pool to replace ships with significant battle damage, thereby, postponing the need for repair facilities. And in most cases, Mexico would have access to US repair facilities.

I've generally assumed that Mexico isn't worried about repairing battle damage - that there's an assumption ships will just fight until they are sunk, and then some of the rest of the horde will be thrown in to the fray. After all, if it's all old, easily replaced crap, why fix it?

On size - I started off building small where I could, and have decided that it wasn't, for the most part, the right decision. Smaller ships are cheaper, but don't necessarily allow a margin of growth for a long service life. They end up requiring more frequent replacement construction or expensive refits (for, say, new machinery or deck armor upgrades).

As for the bigger stuff - a minor power has to be realistic about what it can and can't do. Persia's made the call to forget about naval aviation because it's too specialized and would - especially once jets come around - require even more investment in major infrastructure projects to become feasible. The Persians will, instead, have to contribute to joint Persian/Bharati trade protection and coastal defence requirements, and the Bharatis will help out with the plane situation.

Your observation by regarding Mexico's need or desire to repair battle damage is interesting, and could reflect the point of view of the player; but I think you would agree with me that it is not a course of action to be followed by any other power; Mexico's situation is rather unique in this regard.

And you make a good point - other things being equal, a smaller vessel has growth limitations - and as weapons and systems improve, risk running out of growth or falling behind. Refits may indeed come faster than otherwise. I think it safe to say that there is no single answer for a player, but the player must balance budgets and design costs.

You also point out an option a player of a smaller country might take - work out a division of effort with an allied power. Persia and India are unusually close, but I believe that Brock has alluded to a division of effort between Ireland and Britain. This also plays into design considerations.

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

On size - I started off building small where I could, and have decided that it wasn't, for the most part, the right decision. Smaller ships are cheaper, but don't necessarily allow a margin of growth for a long service life. They end up requiring more frequent replacement construction or expensive refits (for, say, new machinery or deck armor upgrades).

For me, that's a lot of what I mean with my statement "There is nothing more expensive than doing things cheaply." A class of light destroyers may save some now, but when you go to replace it in ten years and it's too small and cramped to take further modernization, how much more is it going to cost you to ditch the class entirely and build a replacement - or massively rebuild them?

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

As for the bigger stuff - a minor power has to be realistic about what it can and can't do.

Agreed. Much of my work with Ireland is predicated not on what I can build tonnage-wise (frankly, I squander as much as half of my budget each year), but rather on maintaining a particular level of manpower for the Naval Service.

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

You also point out an option a player of a smaller country might take - work out a division of effort with an allied power. Persia and India are unusually close, but I believe that Brock has alluded to a division of effort between Ireland and Britain. This also plays into design considerations.

Yes. Basically, Ireland recognizes that Britain simply cannot allow any other power to conquer Ireland, because it would represent an unsustainable threat to British maritime commerce. So... Ireland doesn't need to mess around with trying to beat every possible opponent.

One of the features of our game is the process of peer review. And example can be found here in a design thread for light combatant for Chosen - http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…&threadID=10865

Done correctly, peer review can highlight inconsistencies in the original design, and allows other players to offer suggestion for improvement. This offer a new player the benefit of the experience of those with greater knowledge of the ins-and-outs of Springsharp.

Often it is a give-and-take, with several design revisions, as you will see in the example. Of course, so long as the design conforms to the parameters of Springsharp 2.1 and the conventions of our Gentlemen's Rules, a player can make design decisions that others might not agree with. But it is one of the many ways in which a player can learn the means of designing better vessels.

For Argentina I've never skimped too far on designs. I agree my current light cruisers in building are cheap low-end ships, I want five so buying 5x 7k ton cruisers was more affordable and quicker to achieve than building 5x 8k cruisers, especially since they all rely on one slip for construction. The Belgrano's were expensive but were split between German and Argentine yards, all the battlecruisers and carriers were built aboard too. Basically when you have a small nation and smaller infrastructure to allow multiple large ships its best for a small nation to bite the bullet and buy foreign. You pay a profit margin of course, but in the long run that's not a serious concern when you've kept your slips at home free for other construction requirements. In no way does this rob the player of enjoyment of designing a ship, you can either design it yourself OOC or co-operate on a joint design. Bruce's basic ships posted here offer an interesting array but doubtless any purchaser would want mods to suit them and both of my German ships and the Japanese carriers were bespoke designs.

Buying secondhand makes sense for some cases but not all, I brought the crazy 3x9 4.7in armed Margays from Brazil but I figured the rebuild costs were worth it to acquire nine hulls more cheaply and in less time to build five new ships. Generally I don't buy unless I can get at least ten years out of the hull, perhaps more and few secondhand ships these days are younger than 1930. Not only that, but having to change the gun calibres etc. on more recent ships and ships which have had quite useful recent refits (like many of Bruce's recent sales) often makes no sense because you have to pay for the refit again anyway (and a refitted ship often has an inflated price tag) and you aren't gaining a ship you can buy and use immediately.

You point out several points worth keeping in mind.

If a nation chooses to have some its warships built abroad, it is not automatic that the player is forced to adopt a foreign design. The owning player can design the vessel and find a foreign yard to do the work. This is what I did for Yugoslavia when I contracted the two Srbija-class flotilla cruisers from Greece. On the flip side, as Germany I have sold designs abroad for construction in a nation's home yards - it depends on what particular course the players choose between them.

As for purchasing vessels second hand, you touch on the point that sometimes the speed with which a purchased vessel can be brought into service outweighs the problems of differing designs - particularly if the purchased vessels in question are not that old. My predecessor in the Philippines followed this course of action in anticipation of a conflict with China - known to us as the South China Sea War. He assembled an interesting collection of vessels from a variety of sources that made some sense in a wartime scenario. With the coming of peace however, I have sold off or scrapped most of his acquisitions and concentrated on a coherent force of more capable vessels.

In short, I think that there is no one answer that fits all Wesworld situations that confront smaller nations.

Giving thought to how one can learn how best to use Springsharp within the confines of our rules and conventions, I recall one of the better pieces of advice given to me when I started out

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine


Additionally, one of the things I found extremely helpful when I was learning Springsharp was to identify a number of what I felt to be the "best" Springsharp designs for a particular type of ship. I'd then set everything up so I got a 100% perfect copy. Then I'd change a few parameters and see how they affected the things I cared about. That gave me insights into how other people designed their own ships and what modifications caused certain sorts of results.

Now one can quibble on what constitutes the "best" Springsharp designs, but if you look at enough of them, they will stand out. If followed, will this advice tend to make everyone's vessels look alike? Perhaps, until a player understands Springsharp well enough to strike out own his own. Odd designs have been built in many nations of Wesworld. In any event, I encourage you to try your hand at it.