WesWorld

I gave some thought about this while skimming through books in a store in Vancouver.

Those of us with fictional nations have a blank slate in regard to developing technology. I don't view this as a helpful thing, really. All the naval tech that we are playing with was created by a historical nation, so in order for the fictional nation to keep a level playing field, the players have to purloin the tech from its historical inventors. There's going to be temptation to just randomly pick the coolest stuff out there: consider how many different nations seem to be developing radar and huge torpedoes these days.

So I'm thinking that, in the absence of a rules structure for tech (something I don't think is practical to implement at this point anyway), what I need to do is impose a few limitations on what India would or would not be a leader in.

Two broad categories suggest themselves:

1) Tech based on broadly historical Indian scientific leadership:
[list]A. Math
B. Astronomy
C. Medicine[/list]
2) Tech based on logical responses to in-game developments:
[list]A. Direct operational experience
B. Cultural / "Non-scientific" developments
C. Responses to other nations' developments[/list]
Off-hand, I see initial opportunities to be as follows:

Math

-Codes and cryptology
-Fire control solutions

Astronomy

-Damned if I know. Optics?

Medicine

-Coupled with operational experience: treatment of physical and psychological injuries
-Biological warfare

Direct Operational Experience

-Carrier Ops
-Convoys and trade protection
-Small Craft Ops
-Amphibious Ops
-Special Forces Ops
-Leadership/Experience

Cultural/Non-Scientific Developments

-Esprit D'Corps (pardon my French), as a small, all-volunteer force recruiting from a very large population

-Making best use of statistically small but, in India's case, actually good-size chunks of the population: lookouts with exceptional eyesight, loaders with good endurance/strength, etc.

Responses to Other Nation's Developments

Some of the visible foreign tech that India is bound to see or photograph sooner or later:

-Snorkels
-Radar
-Hydrofoils
-Ahead-throwing ASW weapons
-Streamlined submarine hulls
-The list goes on.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Some of us have more historical models to base things on, however considering that this is a different world, development might be focused in another direction.

Italy seems to have had their hands in a fair few things but weren't able to pursue them all due to lack of money and/or sanctions limiting materiel.

Two areas where Italy qualifies as excellent: face-hardened armour plate, aerodynamics. Terni armour plate was excellent, it was used for the battleships. However the massive power of the Fiat-Ansaldo group ensured that it stayed in this limited role, instead of say making its way into tanks. With aeronautics, the pressure of the Schneider trophy races and Italian leaders were the driving force - establishing air speed and height records which still stand to this day. There was extensive research on aerodynamics with the world's only supersonic wind tunnels at the main testing base at Guidonia.

Another example, radar. Marconi demonstrated it to Italian authorities in 1933. They formed a small team of 5 to compile an extensive report and a working prototype which was done by 1936. From 1936 onwards this team of 5 in their spare time produced 4 different types of radar set but no notice was taken of them. Their performance was similar to those in other countries that had thrown masses of resources at the problem. By the time of the Battle of Matapan the final EC.3ter sets had been built and left sitting in a warehouse for 2 months. It took another 18months before getting them onto a ship. Here is an opportunity to just nudge things into motion a bit quicker, whether its a richer Italy in ATL or whisperings of French radar sets.

In addition to the historic Indian category, as I recall, you indicate the current Indian Navy got substantial help from the Germans, which would suggest similar strengths. Optics being one.

As for the responses, that's harder.
First you have to figure out what it is, then how it effects you, and then if it's worth the research time to duplicate and adopt.

Take schnorkels- the Germans captured Dutch ones in WWII, but didn't see the value until Allied Air became of a problem, then further modified & adopted them. For a 3rd party, trying to decide what that extra periscope that folds down into the sub's casing IS would be another problem.

I think it's better to define the problem and research the tech to solve that. India just had issues with small speedboats. The Italians have hydrofoils. Perhaps India will see the potential to control the gates to the Red Sea with hydrofoils. Or not.

Innovation is a crap shoot but environment also plays a part. Submarines in tropical environments are closer to developing a schnorkel (or airconditioning) than ones in milder climates. The odds of a brown water navy developing carrier doctrine would be very slim indeed.

British radar development started with a 'death ray' and a meeting at the experimental sound mirror (facing Paris). Germany missed centimetric radar development over a misunderstanding a meeting.

The Naval Doctrine Tree from Hearts of Iron 2
http://hoi2.nsen.ch/wiki/index.php/Naval_Doctrine_Tech_Tree

The Naval Tech Tree
http://hoi2.nsen.ch/wiki/index.php/Naval_Tech_Tree

We'd want something more sophisticated than these.

To use an example of just applying this to ships. When design ships we use the current sim year but a leading naval power would be up on current technology but a small power may be some years behind. A power like China may only manage 1910 era technology not 1930. Conceivably, you could be more advanced, or ahead of the curve like the USN was with boiler tech in the late 30's but this is something you'd have to invest in - or pay heavily to maintain it. This would have to mesh with some sort of doctrine but I'm not sure how this would work.

Cheers,

...Canada is run by aliens from the future of an alternate reality. o.o

On a more serious note, I don't think Canada's done anything too far ahead of the tech curve than anyone else, aside from the gyrodyne and airship projects.

the 5.5" DP project is probably going to end up being something Canada regrets, but they're determined to make it work anyway, so only the future will tell on that.

Other than that, Canada has a tendancy to cram a lot of guns onto relatively small hulls, but that's a result of the cleito limitations, and now shipyard limitations. the Manitobas are basically smaller Brooklyns, and time will tell on Canada/Excelsior.

All the mysterious construction and dredging in the arctic might be a concern tho...

btw; Astronomy = Navigation, too.

With Chile...honestly I don't know. If you look at the stuff they build in the late 1920s in Wesworld, they are mostly throwbacks to something that might have been built around 1910 if there wasn't the Dreadnought/Battlecruiser push. Later as they incorperate Atlantean and American technology to their older Nordmark and British technology they start producing modern warships...with a pattern of trying to be larger than Treaty standard to counter a world full of Treaty vessels.

That and there is Tochiro Oyama...a deturmined little man that just won't take no for an answer when it comes to engineering...or much anything else really it seems.

I was about to post a philsophical theory of mine on the evolution of WW tactically. This ties in with Rocky's concerns.

Looking at various comments recently and various ideas on the board I've been struck by the uniformity at WW. Where are the freak designs? Where are the poor designs? Where are the flawed concepts? Where are the original designs?

Everyone here is affected by hindsight, we cannot help that because we've read books and studied naval warfare and technology most of our lives. Is this conditioning us not to make mistakes or take technology too far? I admit I've done it already in WW and others, like Italy, have also done it.

Naval evolution seems to be mirroring the real world development without any dead ends or perhaps different paths that were missed in the real world. Chile s one exception buildig ships that belong to a bygone era. Everyone seems to be building carriers but why? Is there anything in WW history that confirms the use of the carrier tactically or strategically rather than spending the resources on proven traditional cruisers and battleships. The use of hybrids has been one refreshing idea here regardless of what use they might be, and that we cannot tell until they are used in action. Russia's recent unusual cruiser is another such area, everyone says its too unconventional but does this matter. I'd rather players build a few freak ships or ships that are built around a flawed concept than everyone having Iowa clones and Essex class carriers by 1940. There is nothing to suggest that wships designed in WW would resemble the ships built in the 1930s in overall layout and concept.

India I feel bases her feet on practical experience, the development of amphibious warfare capable ships being one area.

Maybe we should compile a section on Naval Warfare in WW include every battle fought since, say 1900, and we should take our lessons from these rather than reading books on naval history and feeding that itno the sim.

What are other players thoughts on this?

Regarding the SAE I face the problem to deal with a power with no historical counterpart. Hence everything comes out of the blue.

In general I think the SAE is hardly in lead regarding any technology. While quite large the RSAN wasn´t involved in any great shooting or operation during the last decades. So there actually is little combat experience dispite sharing information and thoughts with the Indians, Nordmarks or Dutch.

That being said I want the SAE to be good (not necessaarily a world leader) on three fields: reliability, damage control and mechanical computing. Reliability and damage controll fit into the picture when thinking of RSAN designs, I think. It´s all main stream, no extreme designs or experiments so the innovations have to be below surface (if any). Same goes for mechanical computing which might help fire controll as I assume a combination of optics and FC.

On the other hand I expect the SAE to be behind in electronics. No operational radar sets yet (1934) even though a few bright minds are working on something similar due to rumors and informations about other powers developments.

I also think the SAE is behind in aerodynammics. I haven´t spend much time on this issue yet but should I be forced to quote stats for SAE planes I´d use stats of historical designs available in a certain year. That would mean the SAE is behind 3-5 years compared to other powers.

Little work on rokets or turbo jets yet of course.

The SAE also hasn´t introduced fast speed boats yet. One reason surely is springsharp but there also was little reason to have some yet. That might change in the near future, however.

Carrier ops and technology are under investigation due to lessons learned by our Indian friends but I´d still rate many things experimentsl on RSAN carriers. For example you may have noticed casemat mounted 15cm guns on my carriers o.O which are kind of unique in WesWorld, IIRC....

Errors I made in the past: putting too many light guns on 1920er designs. Today I would have done things different.

Atlantis too has developed its own amphibious designs and I would say lag slightly behind India only due to india's extensive use of the types in combat thus far.

I'd based the need for such ships based on experience learned the hard way at the WW equivilent of Galipoli.

I suppose the one area that Atlantis is persuing that most other navy's are not is with scouting blimps.

As for CV's I thought mine were freakish enough with Arrogant and Fearless retaining their flying off decks forward and Alioth displacing less than most CV's, a sort of trade protection carrier.

Germany is behind the leaders in the WesWorld on amphibious ships and on DP weapons (amphibious ships because developing such units would be pretty provocative and DP weapons because Germany was, historically, slow to develop them). Germany is also taking a track of perhaps questionable usefulness with the Maas class ships with their 15cm main battery on the hull of a large destroyer (again very historical, destroyers with 15cm guns were built by Germany at the end of WWI and then again in the 1930s, so apparently there the lower rate of fire was regarded as an acceptable tradeoff).

Germany's also a little behind the curve on aircraft engines and aircraft in general, but the engine situation is getting better and with it the aircraft situation should improve. High speed flight is an area of interest to a number of capable people in Germany now, so it's likely to be a future focus (once the blasted engines get good enough to support it).

Heh, Atlantis would seem to have the opposite problem, decent engines but average airframes.

Quoted

First you have to figure out what it is, then how it effects you, and then if it's worth the research time to duplicate and adopt.

Kirk, I fully agree. I'm not implying that Indian scientists will look at a photograph of a schnorkel and say, "Ah, they've invented a schnorkel", but rather, "That's an odd place for a periscope, and why would they need another? Hmm..."

A schnorkel's deployment on submarines with hulls optimized for underwater speed and a lack of deck guns may help the correct conclusions to be drawn also.

Quoted

British radar development started with a 'death ray' and a meeting at the experimental sound mirror (facing Paris). Germany missed centimetric radar development over a misunderstanding a meeting.

Folks took notice when I posted that some students at the University of Dhaka had perhaps developed a radar system; however, the Q3/32 news subsequently reported that El Derretir ravaged the university's science and engineering departments, perhaps nipping that development in the bud.

Quoted

btw; Astronomy = Navigation, too.

Yeah, but I wasn't sure if there were any notable pre-GPS navigational developments to bring up.

Quoted

All the mysterious construction and dredging in the arctic might be a concern tho...

I've kinda missed that. I doubt India would care much, but as a Canuck I'd personally be curious as to what you're up to.

Everyone uses hindsight. Just look at dual purpose guns and AA guns. I don't think I remember any nation save Italy that doesn't have a dual-purpose weapon. Then again, the need for something capable of fire against aircraft is there so a weapon is slowly being tested, trialled on the cruiser Quarto.

My problem with hindsight is optimising designs for a replay of WWII, which just isn't going to happen. So branching out into other areas that weren't pursued historically. Carriers make more sense for the Indian Ocean. More distance to cover, easier to find and strike with a carrier. Also the preponderence of SAE battleships means that it would be impossible to compete on those lines. Other ships more focused on helping Iberia in the Atlantic. Also a problem in avoiding a foresight war scenario.

Flawed concepts: well there aren't really that many obvious ones for ships. Aircraft - turret fighters? but they have other uses. The quadruple 152/45 and 100/47 mountings used by Italy didn't work very well and still have large limitations. They aren't likely to be repeated.

Quoted

My problem with hindsight is optimising designs for a replay of WWII, which just isn't going to happen.

At this point in the sim, I think it's easier to defend using hindsight to optimize WWII than it is to optimize for WWIII.

So if we're not going to get a replay of WW2, what are we going to get?

Quoted

So if we're not going to get a replay of WW2, what are we going to get?

...if the French and Russian governments have anything to say about it.

Probably small scale skirmishes as countries are unlikely to want to slip into a total war scenario that could leave them totally destroyed.

Interesting topic to say the least.

There is hindsight but we are thinking about WWII, but here in WW there wont be a WWII. There will be a World Wide War, but it will be much different. Just think, give the Americans at PH adequate warning and the Kito Bundai is savaged, with no BB losses we see Plan Orange put into effect. A totally different war would have occured wit just changing one thing, here we have change plenty of things, something that worked in WWII might not work here.


Australia is slightly advanced in regards to AA due to a visit from Manzo. In other regards Ill follow GB lead.

Mexico has yet to lay down something bigger than a Gunboat, and has only designed a 47mm AA gun. Any high tech will come from the US or Atlantis.

Ill give that AA is more developed here but so are aircraft, so it evens out in the long run.

One thing I have tried to do is avoid cloning Iowas etc. Unfortunately Australia is under thecontrol of Fisher's son, which has lead to absolutly crazy designs mounting as much guns as possiblle on the smallest hull possible. But I try to do evrything different, hencethe fow guns on myCVL (even when the Indians have abetter arrangement), the scout CA, the 15 gun CL, and the plans to use 13.5", 9.2", 7.5" guns instead of the more common calibers.

AC are more advanced in both cuntries but still lagg before others.

Quoted

Probably small scale skirmishes as countries are unlikely to want to slip into a total war scenario that could leave them totally destroyed.

But short of some kind of ritualized (or in our case, scripted) conflict, can you convince the other guy to stick with a skirmish without being able to threaten total destruction? Seems to me you've still got to present the worst possible threat you can, whether or not you intend to use it.

Quoted

But short of some kind of ritualized (or in our case, scripted) conflict, can you convince the other guy to stick with a skirmish without being able to threaten total destruction? Seems to me you've still got to present the worst possible threat you can, whether or not you intend to use it.

War is the continuation of policy, and investments there in blood and treasure are limited by the value of respective political goals. The size of the fight you get from your enemy depends on the value to him of what you demand of him. For instance, the French government have concluded that Indochinese people care more about how Indochina is governed, and by whom, than French people do, and see that, if we disagreed on the above, we would kill 10 of them, and they would kill 1 of us, and in the end it would be we who tired of it. The threat of laying Indochina waste would be universally seen as an empty bluff coming from a civilized nation like France, even if it were within French power to do so.

Hence the effort to resolve the situation by peaceful means.

Another thing that kills a Great War scenario is the lack of powerful ideologies controlling nations. Without the rise of nationalism (Fascisim) in Europe and Communism trying to spread its aims there are no real dangerous paranoid leaders to declare war on smaller neighbours. Indeed there are no real small defenceless nations left in Europe (except the Swiss) to pick on, nor it seems any nation who gives a hoot about anyone stomping on someone else's territory.

Therefore I believe wars here will be lmited and short, not least because scripting a war across three continents would take one hell of a long time and who would moderate the war gaming?