WesWorld

Quoted

For my part, I find it surprising that so much Great War-era stuff remains in active service - and is even still, in some cases, being upgraded.

Well I kinda like the Fusos so that is one reason I am upgrading them. The other thing is that if I were to replace them with 4 new BBs of similar size (which is probably unlikely as they would most likely end up being bigger), I would have to spend at least 122,000 tons to do so (though I would gain 18300 tons from scrapping them). The rebuilds cost a total of 61,000 tons and gives the 4 BBs a decent (in my eyes) upgrade to keep them around for a few more decades.

Quoted

Rarely can a twenty-year-old warship, however refitted, function as well as modern construction.

I would agree with that. At least not as main line units. But I think older ships can still be useful as second line units.

Quoted

It is the same with the cult of giganticism for capital ships and large cruisers - it ties up too much tonnage in a few hulls.

That is why I build many small boats as well.

The upgrades to every capital ship built prior to the Montanas were made by previous players. It isn't what I would have necessarily done, nor would I have built the Montanas. That being said, the tonnage invested into them I can't recoup so I might as well finish them. Shedding the Great War era ships leaves me with the Montanas and nothing else, so the 21 knoters stay. USS Texas and the old monitors will be heading to the breakers though now that their lifetime is up.

Even the RN had mass obsolescence to deal with, it took me 10 years to replace the C and D Class cruisers of the Great War and the W&W class DDs and much other old stuff went to the RCN and RAN. Only now in 1946 have the Queen Elizabeths and Hood gone and I ploughed resources into them and Hood.
All the 1920s era ships have needed rebuilding and refitting, all my Great War era tankers needed replacing and I've probably only now just finished all these tasks and many of the 1920s ships are heading towards the breakers. I'm slowly building more modern concepts like Revolution to back up a mass of 1930s replacements, but soon the RN will be shrinking.

I'm not sure I'd put resources into battleships now, probably not worth it, but some fast BCs or Super-CAs might be just as effective and cheaper and quicker to build. You need some big-guns out there. I agree 21kts lineups are out of date, and I'd be wary of rebuilding them again with modern 1940s weapons, sensors and electronics when the hulls are probably well past the prime.

I'd have no problem with a larger Army and Air Force to counter Iberia, that would seem sensible.

I don't remember the idea of the U.S. having a large army and air force to counter Iberia being shot down so I'm not sure where this comes from. I don't have a problem with that notion, it makes sense.

I also don't think the U.S. suffers significantly worse than any other nation if say every nation had to scrap its ships finished before 1920. I think what's being missed here is that the U.S. was the first superpower, certainly after WW2 they were. Here in Wesworld the events that would make the U.S. a superpower have not happened. As a result I think the U.S is one of the more realistically sized fleets, I know that's just my opinion but it also seems to be the general consensus as at least two other participants in this discussion have the same opinion. When I compare the U.S. to Atlantis the U.S. tends to come out on top, even with me behind several years in the sim I'd only be replacing old hulls. When we compare the U.S. vs. Atlantis.....

11 large CV's vs. 10, I don't include the Langley/Sackets harbor class or my Alioth/Nautica types, the U.S have a well balanced fleet of old and new fleet carriers welding 762 aircraft, Atlantis has the two Arrogant class and 8 Arcturus with 744 aircraft. If you throw all the smaller CV's in its 852 vs. 798. I'll likely have 2-4 more CV's built or building by the time I catch up sim wise but Alioth is being replaced and quite possibly the Arrogants too. Advantage: even

17 BB vs. 18, The 5 American Pensy's and New Mexico's counter almost my entire 14" gunned fleet of 7 ships, the 6 Tennessee's tip that scale in the older BB's category even when I add my 2 Melampus class. The Tennessee's also pose a serious enough threat to my 4 newer Memnon/Philomedes class ships. The Montana's vs. Neptune's is more of an even comparison, the only advantage I have is a 2 knot speed advantage and its doubtfull I'll build any more battleships as much as I'd like to. So while Atlantis may have a slightly larger battleline with more newer ships this would be the only class of ships where I might agree that the U.S. is not as strong as it should be but by no means is it inferior. Advantage: even, depending on the scenario

4 BC vs. 4 (Lexington's vs. Vengeance and Alaska's vs. Evamon's), The Lexington's to me have the edge vs. the Vengeance class, 16" guns against 15" belt armor vs 14" guns against 12" belt armor. Lexington's have nearly double the broadside weight and a 2 knot advantage. My Evamon's can't even compare favorably in any category vs Alaska's and they are not long for this world anyway. Advantage: Clearly U.S.

21 CA vs. 12, again even with me being several sim years behind I could at best build maybe 4-6 CA's (I'm really pushing it with 8). U.S. Cruisers before the auto loaders number 206 guns on 19 hulls. Atlantean cruisers mount 125 on 13 hulls. If I compare up to 1934 its 134 guns vs. 125 on an equal number of ships. The six Los Angeles class outclass all my ships pre 1934 not to mention quite a few of the worlds other CA designs.
Their two half sisters are basically Des Moines on steroids and outclass even some of the 9.2" armed CA's. Advantage: U.S.

30 CL vs. 48, Almost half the Atlantean fleet being old ships due for scrapping, 20 ships likely replaced by more 5.1" AA cruisers. Atlantis will likely dable with DP 6" guns but won't likely have the success that the Americans will have and the U.S. already has 12 ships armed with DP guns and more on the way. The shell weight diference between the 5.1" and 6" is significant and the 6" has a range advantage too. The American CL's also have a 5" secondary armament that nearly counters my Zerberus/Nemesis mainarmament (8 guns vs. 12), expected given the 4,000 ton diference between them and the Brooklyn's. In fact the six Brooklyn's practically counter my 12 Acestus/Cerasus/Ares class ships due to the Brooklyn's secondary's being much heavier. Advantage: U.S

130 DD vs. 112, Six of the American DD's are super DD's essentially mini Atlanta's and they are out numbered by my Aruba class DDL's (16), the 58 truxton/Bainbridge/Tattnall/Farragut are countered by the 64 K class/I class/J class and elderly H class. The 24 Ingraham/Gearing's would likely be countered by another 16 K class and 32 more J class type ships. I don't bother to count the 42 Wickes class or any of my 48 alphabet/Type 1/Type 2 destroyers because they all will likely disappear soon enough. Even my newest Alphabet class, the 16 G's, aren't really worth saving as they don't refit well but they might as a cost saving measure. Advantage: Fairly even if I count planned Atlantean ships but the American destroyers tend to be larger.

Add in the fact that Nato counters any threat from Iberia (save the U.S. being the Aggressor, in which case Mexico is likely allied to the U.S. anyway) and the U.S. is on good terms with most, if not all, the European countries I don't see the U.S. as a weak power at all.

This argument is turning ridiculous. I am saying the US is weaker relatively speaking than the UK, France, Russia, Germany, Atlantis, Japan and the other Great Powers where you see a parity that I do not.

Look at the availability of US controlled bases and logistical support ships. The US is quite powerful in its own backyard, beyond that its ability to project power outside of the Atlantic, Carribbean and Pacific seaboards is quite limited and it can only be at parity with the available naval forces in one of those theatres.

Quoted

This argument is turning ridiculous.

Yes, I agree. If it goes on like this, the next thing you will be saying is that Canada is a Great Power and the US isn't...

Quoted

I am saying the US is weaker relatively speaking than the UK, France, Russia, Germany, Atlantis, Japan and the other Great Powers where you see a parity that I do not.

The Wesworld universe unanimously agree that the US is definitely a Great Power, but you seem unwilling to admit that it is. I would agree that the US is weaker than the UK (well everyone is) but I would definitely put it on the same level as the other nations. If the US truly isn't a Great Power then neither are France, Russia, Germany, Atlantis, and Japan.

Compared to the others, the US may perhaps be a bit rustier (due to the older ships), but weaker? No.

I kind of get the impression from you that because the US Navy in Wesworld is nowhere near as strong as the OTL US Navy, it must be significantly weaker than the other navies and that is just not true.

Quoted

The US is quite powerful in its own backyard, beyond that its ability to project power outside of the Atlantic, Carribbean and Pacific seaboards is quite limited and it can only be at parity with the available naval forces in one of those theatres.

I would think that individually that would be true for all the nations except the UK. We're strong in our own backyard but not so much beyond it.

Alright then here is my hypothetical war between the US and Japan.

The US Pacific Fleets sorties and gets smashed by the IJN as the PacFLT is outnumbered 2-1. US loses Hawaii. The ATL fleet sails through the canal and gets smashed by the IJN. Japanese land in California, US sues for peace.

That isn't a Great Power performance.

To me that seems similar to Burnside's actions at Frederickburg. Any USN Admiral who would execute a plan like that should be executed for treason.

Edit: Using your 'attack' plan, I am pretty sure that France, Russia, Germany, South Africa, Italy, Iberia, and maybe even the UK would end up with a similar result as the US.

That is the official war plan for the USN. Follows War Plan Orange from OTL which was an attack through the Mandates to relieve the Philippines. IOTL the Americans could assume parity with the IJN with regards to the PacFLT and numerical superiority once the ALTFLT arrives. Here, the USN is essentially at parity with the IJN once the ALTFLT arrives. Also, unlike OTL I cannot build a second fleet once the peacetime fleet is destroyed.

Quoted

That is the official war plan for the USN. Follows War Plan Orange from OTL which was an attack through the Mandates to relieve the Philippines.

Then modify the plan. In Wesworld the Philippines is independent, and the US is in no way committed to its defense or relief. This is a game of alternate history.

Of course it is Bruce.

TheCanadian, I think your assumptions are incorrect. In Wesworld, while the United States isn't the superpower it was IOTL, it remains a Great Power. Much of its fleet is old, but so are many others. I consider it not the preminent economic power, but likely first among equals. It has a reasonable chance of victory in a foreign war, and at worst would fight to a draw.

Yes, I was trolling. The other stuff that is.

I haven't taken leave of my senses.

Quoted from "TheCanadian"

Of course it is Bruce.

TheCanadian, I think your assumptions are incorrect. In Wesworld, while the United States isn't the superpower it was IOTL, it remains a Great Power. Much of its fleet is old, but so are many others. I consider it not the preminent economic power, but likely first among equals. It has a reasonable chance of victory in a foreign war, and at worst would fight to a draw.

Yes, I was trolling. The other stuff that is. :P

I haven't taken leave of my senses.

That has become rather difficult to recognize, and I for one really don't appreciate trolling. I find it exasperating. It's now not clear to me why you opened this topic, as every positive suggestion has been met with mulish complaint (or deliberate trolling - as I said, I can't tell). You knew the situation the US was in when you consented to take on the country upon Canis' departure, and you have had six game years to address to some degree any shortcomings - the situation is now of your own making.

Your definition of "Great Power", if it was not trolling, applies to no nation in Wesworld - for none dominate the world economy and none have the power projection abilities to successfully carry out an expedition on the scale of the US effort in the Second World War. That point has been made by several others in this thread and you have rejected their opinions. What do you want is to do?

I thought it funny? And you said I was missed.

I made this thread originally with a serious thought in mind, and a question I wondered about. How strong is the US in Wesworld? The general consensus has been that it is weaker than IOTL, but still a Power to be respected. That is something I agree with though it is isn't well detailed how that came about, and I honestly don't know how to have it come about.

Perhaps to make things clearer, the US was considered a sleeping giant for much of the early 20th century. It was considered a Great Power by the 1900s, and it had the potential to become what it eventually did, a superpower. Here, that potential is not there....for whatever reason even though all the pieces are. Which is something I have been trying to grapple with and failing.

The navy vs navy thing, war plan all that was nonsense.

The real question I don't have an answer to is where did the US's lost potential go?

...??...?!?...?

Yeah, I couldn't tell that you were trying to provoke discussion either. You were just sounding weirdly manic-depressive...

For reference, I've spent most of the day writing a eulogy and preparing for a funeral, so I'm in a low mood right now.

Quoted

Perhaps to make things clearer, the US was considered a sleeping giant for much of the early 20th century. It was considered a Great Power by the 1900s, and it had the potential to become what it eventually did, a superpower. Here, that potential is not there....for whatever reason even though all the pieces are. Which is something I have been trying to grapple with and failing.

Now that I have a better understand where you are coming from, I will refer you back to my first reply wherein I referenced game mechanics.

In the real world, the US invested money in its navy from the mid 1930s on, and lots of money from 1939 forward. The mechanics of our game don't permit throwing money at our navies - it requires several steps of investment, and would have required putting the resources into factory construction from the get-go. Your predecessors chose not to go that route - but it would be the only one which would yield the ability to build anything close to a Second World War scale US Navy.

Trying to figure out what happened to resources that were not put into factories or ships is, IMHO, a waste of time - particularly when it is something you cannot ask the people who made the decisions at the time.

Some of that potential stayed in Europe, and other parts went off to Canada, Australia, South Africa, South America, etc.

Remember there was no real coherent version of WW1 for a long time, beyond, "Germany lost and Versaiilles". It was just "Let's build ships" and "Let's have a treaty so we have some constraints/context and nobody goes completely whackadoodle right from the start".

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

Some of that potential stayed in Europe, and other parts went off to Canada, Australia, South Africa, South America, etc.

Remember there was no real coherent version of WW1 for a long time, beyond, "Germany lost and Versaiilles". It was just "Let's build ships" and "Let's have a treaty so we have some constraints/context and nobody goes completely whackadoodle right from the start".

That is a rather good way of expressing it Rocky. When I look back on some of the earliest posts in Wesworld I get the feeling that there were some agreements among the original players on their respective capabilities that were only formalized into rules at some later point. Some nations have more factories than the rules might otherwise permit; some are fictional, and their factory numbers an arbitrary construct. Britain and the US were not originally active players.

It is the game we have chosen to play. If we were rebooting I am certain that the rules we agree upon (if we could ever agree on a reboot at all) would be far more coherent and worked out in the light of our experience over the last dozen years or so.

America and the UK were intended to isolationist Great Powers, activated only if the mods needed an in-game mechanism to keep a player in line.

We ended up with twenty countries capable of building battleships because we had twenty guys who wanted to design battleships. Economic rationality had little to do with it.

Quoted

Here, the USN is essentially at parity with the IJN once the ALTFLT arrives.

Actually, if you take the fight to Japan (which is how I read the 'The US Pacific Fleets sorties' bit), then the IJN has the edge, especially if you first throw out the Pacific Fleet at it and then the Atlantic Fleet. The obvious thing to do is to take away Japan's regional advantage and draw them out to the open ocean so the numerous MTBs, coastal submarines and midget submarines are not going to be a factor.

Then there is of course the fact that Japan cannot afford to send out its whole fleet due to the presence of SAER as well as troublemaker China in the region. Actually because of that, even if the IJN would succeed in destroying the USN in two pieces as you indicated in your example, I doubt the Japanese would push their success and take Hawaii and land in California. It seems more likely that adventurous Pacifica might try their luck with the US Pacific possessions should the USN be obliterated by another nation.

Quoted

Also, unlike OTL I cannot build a second fleet once the peacetime fleet is destroyed.

Yes and no. With the Wartime production rule, you'd be pumping out 45,000 tons per quarter with those 30 factories so you can definitely build something to replace the lost units, but if you spend it all on building big BBs and CVs, then you won't have anything for the other important units and since it takes forever to build those big ships, it will take forever before you are able to build any part of a fleet.

Quoted

The navy vs navy thing, war plan all that was nonsense.

Nonsense perhaps but still a good comparison to indicate that the US is not a paper tiger as you put it.

Quoted

The real question I don't have an answer to is where did the US's lost potential go?

Maybe because of how the game was set up with the factories, the potential was never there?

Quoted

In the real world, the US invested money in its navy from the mid 1930s on, and lots of money from 1939 forward. The mechanics of our game don't permit throwing money at our navies - it requires several steps of investment, and would have required putting the resources into factory construction from the get-go. Your predecessors chose not to go that route - but it would be the only one which would yield the ability to build anything close to a Second World War scale US Navy.

"Build anything close to a Second World War scale US Navy" but at what cost? If the US had used its output to build lots of factories so it could match the historical US output, how would the USN look? Of course in order to be able to build a lot, additional slips and docks might have to be built as well... and even if you had all that, you would still have to start building it. And while the US starts building its massive fleet, the enemy obliterates the completely obsolete US units that are there and take over the US before any new units are completed. The massive output might be nice but it would be quite useless when it can't be protected.

Looking back at the first report of the US, it started out with 24 factories and over the years it has increased that number to the current 30 factories so it is not like the US didn't make any effort to increase its output.

I have thought about it a number of times post Cleito to build additional factories, but after 1930 it is just not worth building new factories unless the game goes on for numerous decades after 1950 so it is better to accept the current output and use it to build/refit/reconstruct ships.

Interesting...

The US started with 24 factories in game; it should have started with 27 if you applied the current rules. Again, in the early days (when rocks were soft) things were different.