WesWorld

Gents:

Everybody participating in Wesworld can design a warship that is technically sound - it isn't going to capsize, or break in two, or have exposed machinery. If you're new, perhaps you're still sorting this out, but you'll have it down soon enough.

Now, while I appreciate the artistry of a line drawing, I have to confess I don't pay much attention any more to most of the designs that get posted here. We've spent eight sim-years building to the legal limitations of the Cleito Treaty, so I know what I can expect of a certain class of ship, and I know that for any given year, a ship design should be incrementally superior in some respect to its predecessors. I also know I have another seven sim-years of this to look forward to, barring some radical events in our sim.

If Wesworld continues to function as a forum for "Ship X built in Year Y" posts, I expect to lose interest and wander away at some point. The appeal to me now in Wesworld is not in designing ships but in designing navies. This is why I make a point of posting news every quarter, why I write essays, why I interact with you guys - to have the context in which my navy decides what ships to build and how they will be designed. I also do it so that those of you who consider India a potential rival can be informed and respond appropriately.

Unfortunately, I kinda feel like I'm in a vacuum here. Many navies appear to be random collections of favorite designs, with nothing more in mind than building to the treaty limits and one-upping the other guys. There are a few exceptions, such as Italy; while I sometimes/often disagree with Gavin's conclusions, I respect the fact that he's thinking about the big picture, developing a strategy, and telling us about it.

My visits to Wesworld would be so much more interesting if I was to see one essay by somebody every couple of days on a matter of strategic considerations or design history. I could give you more effective feedback on your designs. I could react to you more appropriately. I'd have more fun.

I'm done ranting. Apologies if I've offended anybody, but hopefully it has y'all thinking.

You've got me to get off my arse and start writing again. Hopefully in the next few days I'll actually get back into writing news.

You have a good point. I'm trying to steer the Philippines torwards a homogenous fleet (tho it isn't easy) and have been planning a few "Direction of the Fleet" memorandums for when the Revolution is wrapped up.

I've done some work revisiting the various colors of war plans but my eye problems have put things on the back burner for now as far as anything beyond a simple outline of plans.

I know where you're coming from. I don't normally bother with 'this is my ship, what do you think' stuff, save where something odd is happening.

Once I'm on an even keel, I'm hoping to produce some stuff about doctrine and directions for the future, as time permits. Ultimately, I think I'll be heading for a cruiser navy (duh) with enough battleline to safeguard the North Sea, Western Approaches and the Mediterranean.

Even the latter may be 'weakened' and the ships replaced with diplomatic relationships. I anticipate (but haven't yet decided) to have 8 Treaty Maximum ships, with a collection of little things to strengthen the cruiser force. Aircraft carriers should be interesting; given the operational areas, I'm probably going to keep the historical RN armoured-deck carriers - especially if someone proves the Italians right about the capability of bombers.

Cruisers will be numbers over quality, probably 10,000 ton heavies and assorted lighter ships. I think I'll need to check the Treaty of Cleito.

Robert

I'll be looking forward to your work, Robert. RN dispositions in the Indian Ocean are a complete mystery to me.

In doing the reports for GB I'd worked on the following force levels;

8 BB (@40000 ton each)
8 CC (@20000 ton each)
5 CV (@22000 ton each)
16 CA (@10,000 ton each)
40 CL (@ 8,000 ton each)
100 DD (@ 1600 ton each)

Tonnage was moved from DD to CL category. DD can be substituted for escorts in the unlimited category. I reasoned that CL need to be as big as foreign ones to be effective.

Cheers,

I'll be honest and admit that I think the Greek fleet of this size is utterly implausible.
I struggle to find the time to breath life into something I don't believe in. Sorry - I'm not worthy : (
If I had time, that was what I had the FEH for.

I use Greece to discover where the edge of the envelope is to see if I can make suggestions to bring more reality to the rules for any future wesworld2. eg. I think a warship cost should be light displacement + weight of machinery, armour and guns added again. We do nothing on crewing, aircraft etc. Much more - I'll shut up now.

Cheers,

The power of the RN in this world is more like the 1950's than the inter war period in a relative sense. Gibraltar is hopelessly vulnerable, more so than Malta. GB is hemmed in by Atlantis and other large fleets. The situation is a challenge.

Cheers,

Rocky,

I agree with you. Some of the most memorable threads I've participated in have revolved around designing a Navy.

Theodore had a good one on Bob Henneman's forum. He's done a series of "Vanguard" threads, using other/older ships' armament for new vessels. This one particularly had the PD's purchased from the US as the source for the armament for a navy.

Another Brad Smith III started had Brazil getting 50,000 tons of US construction in the late 1940. Yet another on the Design a Ship/Navy board posed what kind of navy could Siam have on 100,000 tons?

And of course there's alt naval's FEH threads from the previous Warship Projects board.

Regards,

Big Rich

One of the reasons I first started visiting this site was that it was more 'complete' than some other 'design your own ship' threads that seemed to be in a perputual race to build the biggest BB with the biggest guns with no consideration for the rest of the supporting units.
I spent some time in the USN and I know that there is a lot more to a navy than just ships. Even with the most balanced fleet you still need the shore-based infrastructure. You have to have the ability to train and man the ships. And so on....
Comparing ship design A to ship design B is a simple statistical exercise that reveals little. The value of any ship is the role it plays within the entire fleet. Your fleet composition & mission of the force really dictate whether the design is valid or not.
Each county needs a 'mission statement' that basically defines their relationships in the world, and the role they wish their military to play. That becomes the basis for the fleet design and susquent evaluation of ship types.
This is where every SS wiz gets to be a writer of great naval fiction!
It might be interesting to have mulitple players develop the 'total' background of the nation. It would also be appropriate to maintain the Air & Land force components concurrent with the naval section. You don't fight wars with just one service. Strategic planning requires combined arms operations and integration of resources. For example, what type of a/c do you have and how could they support your naval activities?
(Well so much for this rant, time to settle back and watch the election result fun & games here in San Diego)

I like role playing and designing navies more than designing ships. That being my main reason for joining. Unfortunately my writing skills are not very good.

Australia has you've probably noticed will take the route of commerce protection. Im not going to build maximum BB. My only plan for a BB being 13,000 tons.

One of the reasons I've been reluctant to taking on a country, is because if I take one on, I want to do it right.

Well Shin you can always take a smaller nation on, its acctually more fun for me to play Turkey than it is Atlantis because of the size of Turkey's fleet and the need to keep up.

As for writing more story's hell I still have to get abit more background on Atlantis, which rely's heavily on Iberian participation.

Quoted

Unfortunately, I kinda feel like I'm in a vacuum here. Many navies appear to be random collections of favorite designs, with nothing more in mind than building to the treaty limits and one-upping the other guys. There are a few exceptions, such as Italy; while I sometimes/often disagree with Gavin's conclusions, I respect the fact that he's thinking about the big picture, developing a strategy, and telling us about it.

I really don't know where to begin tackling this paragraph.

Rocky, you´re soooo right. I also often wondered about some designs I saw here on the board and why the navy in question should build the ship in question. However, discussing the strategy behind those designs proved fruitless and so I stopped asking. I also think that asking for a naval strategy for each navy would make poer gaming less likely.

Alt_Naval - I agree that the rules have proved incomplete. Things would be different if we had realistic rules for maintenance and supply. Another point is tonnage allocation and factory output which is too high in general - at least as long as we do not play with sustained costs to keep our fleets running.

Hoo, It's like we all have a Tirpitz like Naval Law that guarantees a level of funding rather then having to live year to year as in just about every other navy's case.

Cheers,

I have suggested Economic rules several times, but its been shot down or turned into something incredibly complex.....

Real economics IS incredibly complex, for instance look at the (fast approaching) crash of 1929 and the Great Depression. To a degree, there is an element of economics at play already: Great Britain has been pouring its money into its economy, rather than its navy, for years. Germany is, on a far smaller scale, now trying to follow in the same path. Adding more could be done, of course, for example every year someone other than the country's player says "the government votes/gives/whatever you X percentage of the factories", where X might range from 75 to 125, or even 50 to 150.

Maintenance, though, does not need to be all that complex. A simple maintenance system would be something like: Quarterly maintenance cost = Ship cost * 0.025 (2.5%). The multiplier could be adjusted up or down depending on what we liked, and could even be adjusted up or down depending on what the ship was doing (though the last starts getting complicated).

Foxy: everybody has to start somewhere. There are probably a few of us who felt the same way not so long ago. Consider this an opportunity to practice your work in front of a friendly audience and take advantage of the compliments and constructive criticism you'll receive.

Shinra: it can be hard to do right by a country immediately; it's taken me sim-years to figure out what I think India's best path is. But it's hard to do a country right unless you commit yourself to one. Worst comes to worst, you can write off your early miscues as "political interference" or something.

The rules issues are a separate issue, I think. I'm open to a number of changes in principle but am concerned about reconciling what we've done with what we'd be doing.

Appreciate the discussion so far, guys.

Quoted

Worst comes to worst, you can write off your early miscues as "political interference" or something.

That's actually one of the reasons I decided to stage the "Filipino Revolution"; it gives me a chance to start fresh politically and an excuse to make some major changes in fleet direction...

Quoted

I'm open to a number of changes in principle but am concerned about reconciling what we've done with what we'd be doing.

Which is my major concern as well. Any alteration to the economics rules runs the risk of invalidating (for lack of a better term) previously built ships - do we "butterfly" them out of exsistance? (And then allow "substutions" with the "freed" tonnage?) That's a can o' worms that, IMHO, WW1 is better off not having opened.

If it helps, think of the current sim as having the balance tilted towards "fun" while a follow-up would aim more torwards "realism".

Quoted

It's like we all have a Tirpitz like Naval Law that guarantees a level of funding rather then having to live year to year as in just about every other navy's case.
*******
Great Britain has been pouring its money into its economy, rather than its navy, for years. Germany is, on a far smaller scale, now trying to follow in the same path.

The Philippines does guarantee a level of funding to the MdF. Also (as there were virtually no ships built 1900-1921!) I've assumed that considerable effort went into economic buildup during that time.

The Marina de Filipinas is going to make some considerable course changes in the near future (and not just leaving the "ship-shattering ka-boom" stereotype behind); stay tuned.