WesWorld

First, let's talk about older ships.

So looking through the various Indian sim reports for the past six years, I concluded that the BNS has approximately 120,000 t of warships and auxiliaries that are either immediately due or overdue for a 25% refit. That works out to about 30,000 t of work, compared to India's maximum output of 44,000 t per year.

{You folks in the Dutch section can stop cheering now...}

A lot of these refits are obviously evident, but there are a few cases where I'm eyeballing the specifics and wondering whether it makes more sense to simply replace the units in question. I'd like your opinion on these.

1. Mahanadi and Ramree Island class oilers. All built back at a time in which oil payload was specified as miscellaneous weight rather than additional bunkerage. High light displacement (thus, cost) for a limited payload. Low stability, too.

2. Repair ship Otta. The hull is actually almost 30 years old now, but she was a collier and then an experimental carrier before being refitted to a repair ship in the mid-twenties. I'm thinking it's time to retire the old girl.

3. Monitor Chandragupta. Is this shore bombardment/coastal defence unit still useful with three battleships and four armored cruisers available?

Now let's talk about newer ships - specifically, cruisers.

India laid down two Delhi-class ships in 1936. These units have a hull strength of 1.06. I'd like to know if it would be acceptable to go back and ret-con three specific aspects of this design to correct what I see as deficiencies:

-Increase the main battery shell count from 150 to ~250
-Increase miscellaneous weight to something greater than 50 t
-Increase freeboard to get a seakeeping value greater than 1.00.

India also laid down two units (or three, if one counts Khanda) of the Chapra class in 1940. These units are currently less than 50% complete. I'm personally not satisfied with this design; I think it tries for too much on too little displacement. I'm contemplating whether to cancel construction, or suspend and redesign the existing hull to take a smaller main battery - perhaps 12x15 cm. What are your views on this?

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
1. Mahanadi and Ramree Island class oilers. All built back at a time in which oil payload was specified as miscellaneous weight rather than additional bunkerage. High light displacement (thus, cost) for a limited payload. Low stability, too.

Sounds like something that could be replaced without issue.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
2. Repair ship Otta. The hull is actually almost 30 years old now, but she was a collier and then an experimental carrier before being refitted to a repair ship in the mid-twenties. I'm thinking it's time to retire the old girl.

Target test ship?

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
3. Monitor Chandragupta. Is this shore bombardment/coastal defence unit still useful with three battleships and four armored cruisers available?

Yes. I'm not sure how much it was called out, but the monitor put in some good service during the Persian Civil War. I think it's valuable to have a naval gunfire support unit that is more expendable than one of your much more expensive fast battleships or armoured cruisers.

Given Otta's limited scrap value, I'm thinking a museum. She was a collier during the initial growth of the modern fleet, a carrier during the early Cleito years (complete with air attacks against Danes and Siamese!) and a repair ship later in life. It's a pretty eventful career, really. She can go hang out with that pre-dread, wherever it is.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor

1. Mahanadi and Ramree Island class oilers. All built back at a time in which oil payload was specified as miscellaneous weight rather than additional bunkerage. High light displacement (thus, cost) for a limited payload. Low stability, too.

I could see these being relegated to harbor service as storage hulks and replaced by more modern vessels built to our current conventions.

Quoted

2. Repair ship Otta. The hull is actually almost 30 years old now, but she was a collier and then an experimental carrier before being refitted to a repair ship in the mid-twenties. I'm thinking it's time to retire the old girl.

Like the oilers, she can probably still function in a static role. Anchor her at a forward base and she could still carry out repairs even at a reduced efficiency. It would save you immediate demands on tonnage for replacement, or at least allow you to build a modern unit under current conventions for active service in lieu of a full refit.

Quoted

3. Monitor Chandragupta. Is this shore bombardment/coastal defence unit still useful with three battleships and four armored cruisers available?

In my opinion, if you are going to actually carry out amphibious landings with naval gunfire support, you can never have too many guns for the job. As a coast defence unit, I'd really have my doubts given the advances in aircraft capability in the last twenty years of Wesworld.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Now let's talk about newer ships - specifically, cruisers.

India laid down two Delhi-class ships in 1936. These units have a hull strength of 1.06. I'd like to know if it would be acceptable to go back and ret-con three specific aspects of this design to correct what I see as deficiencies:

-Increase the main battery shell count from 150 to ~250
-Increase miscellaneous weight to something greater than 50 t
-Increase freeboard to get a seakeeping value greater than 1.00.

I don't think an increase in ammo for such large guns is necessary. Even most 8" cruisers tended not to carry more than 150-180 rounds per gun, so I don't believe that this is a deficiency that needs retconning. I'd suggest that if you feel strongly that it needs more shells aboard, a modest refit would be better for the task. I'd say miscellaneous weight is the same way - it shouldn't take a very expensive refit to add more miscellaneous weight. The freeboard/seekeeping issue... eh, I might be inclined to give you that.

My main issue with retconning a design is that I'd prefer it to only be used for when there's been an obvious mistake - for example, if the freeboard amidships was accidentally left at 0, or if there were nine guns arranged in nine turrets, or something like that. I'm very reluctant to retcon based on differences with the preceding player's design philosophy. Perhaps others might feel differently.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
India also laid down two units (or three, if one counts Khanda) of the Chapra class in 1940. These units are currently less than 50% complete. I'm personally not satisfied with this design; I think it tries for too much on too little displacement. I'm contemplating whether to cancel construction, or suspend and redesign the existing hull to take a smaller main battery - perhaps 12x15 cm. What are your views on this?

I think if you redesign them to 12x15cm, you're going to have a lot of excess hull strength. I'd almost wonder if it wouldn't be better to make then into a 9x20cm CA, or use the reconstruction to make them 15x15cm.

I believe that Perdy's plan was to complete a number of those ships - not just the ones marked in the encyclopedia - as CVs. I'd have to go back and check my PMs to see if he and I discussed it and I'm mis-remembering, though.

I'd be content to trade HS for misc weight and freeboard on the Delhis. I'm not looking to add several hundred tonnes - a total of 200 t would allow for the likely AC and flag facilities such a ship would have, plus some intentional room for future electronics or light flak or whatever.

Perds had the third Chapra marked for near-immediate conversion to a CVL. I don't know if he had similar plans for the first two.

15x15's crossed my mind as well. I haven't gone into SS to sim out the options themselves, given the need to float the idea past y'all first.

I'd kinda prefer an 8x20cm or 9x20cm ship myself; it's about the right combination of displacement, protection, etc in my view. The 15x15cm would be my second choice, but I figure you could get a decent one on that hull.

Of course, you could be oddball and see if the Chinese quadruple 6" turret fits in 4x4 layout...

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
I'd be content to trade HS for misc weight and freeboard on the Delhis. I'm not looking to add several hundred tonnes - a total of 200 t would allow for the likely AC and flag facilities such a ship would have, plus some intentional room for future electronics or light flak or whatever.

I still feel very reluctant to address that issue using a retcon when a 15% Minor Refit will give the same result. :/

SS2 says Chapra could ship 4x3 - 210mm, or 4x4 - 150 mm (complete with an extra knot of speed and improved protection - whee!).

The Indians do have experience with some quads (albeit not those quads) and the hull is beamy enough, at least by WW standards.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I'd kinda prefer an 8x20cm or 9x20cm ship myself; it's about the right combination of displacement, protection, etc in my view. The 15x15cm would be my second choice, but I figure you could get a decent one on that hull.

Of course, you could be oddball and see if the Chinese quadruple 6" turret fits in 4x4 layout...

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
I'd be content to trade HS for misc weight and freeboard on the Delhis. I'm not looking to add several hundred tonnes - a total of 200 t would allow for the likely AC and flag facilities such a ship would have, plus some intentional room for future electronics or light flak or whatever.

I still feel very reluctant to address that issue using a retcon when a 15% Minor Refit will give the same result. :/

Alright, I give up on that. Can I at least get a pass on the freeboard, which can not be changed through refits?

Yes.

Thanks.

I can find no record of their being discarded, but CL Port Blair and Cochin, and DD Johdpur, seemed to fall out of the Indian records after Perds took over. I'm going to assume they're laid up and awaiting disposal.

I can also find no record of the four initial Penner class minesweepers being discarded, despite the fact that Perds re-used the names for a new class of minesweepers. I think I'll assume the names were lifted and the four are laid up, awaiting disposal, too.

Okay

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Yes.

With all due respect, I'm not so sure that's a good idea. Perdy knew the freeboard was low on his design and had the opportunity to fix it before he started construction. It was part of Perdy's design style not to try to make his ship designs 100% perfect, which in this case included the slightly low freeboard and leftover hull strength.

I'm not really comfortable with the idea of allowing retconning of ship designs just because a new player disagrees with the design style of a previous player. The rest of us who've taken over mid-game have had to deal with different preceding design styles without retconning, and I don't think it's fair to change things unless there's an obvious user error, as I stated above.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
I can find no record of their being discarded, but CL Port Blair and Cochin, and DD Johdpur, seemed to fall out of the Indian records after Perds took over. I'm going to assume they're laid up and awaiting disposal.

I can also find no record of the four initial Penner class minesweepers being discarded, despite the fact that Perds re-used the names for a new class of minesweepers. I think I'll assume the names were lifted and the four are laid up, awaiting disposal, too.

Fine with me.

Nations in the past have occasionally been given significant increases in their factory count.

I'm not asking for that. I'm not asking for the various treaties or the isolated diplomatic position Bharat is saddled with to be undone. I'm not asking to delete ships such as the several jeep carriers of dubious value. I'm not even asking to change the armament, armor, or speed of the two ships in question. I just want to use excess hull strength to make them higher.

I did not think that was asking too much, but if that's the final verdict, then I will give up on the issue.

Hedjaz' encyclopedia is in good shape.

I haven't figured out why it sent 500 t to Bharat in Q1/41 and Q2/41, though. This will probably translate into some low key acquisition(s) in Q3/41; not an aircraft carrier.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Nations in the past have occasionally been given significant increases in their factory count.

I'm not asking for that. I'm not asking for the various treaties or the isolated diplomatic position Bharat is saddled with to be undone. I'm not asking to delete ships such as the several jeep carriers of dubious value. I'm not even asking to change the armament, armor, or speed of the two ships in question. I just want to use excess hull strength to make them higher.

I did not think that was asking too much, but if that's the final verdict, then I will give up on the issue.

I'm not making a verdict, I'm just stating my opinion. In this isolated case, it's probably fine; I just think that in general it's not a good idea to go back and change ships just because the new player doesn't like what the old player did. But go ahead and raise the freeboard in this case.

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
I haven't figured out why it sent 500 t to Bharat in Q1/41 and Q2/41, though. This will probably translate into some low key acquisition(s) in Q3/41; not an aircraft carrier.

Given the way things were working in Bharat, I'd anticipate that it was part of Hedjaz's protection money payments rather than a purchase/acquisition.

That could be true as well.