Units

According to this page, an N3 class of battleship was designed to look like this:



How this picture was put together, I have no idea, but the N3-class does manage to succeed spectacularly in actually managing to look more horrible than Nelson and Rodney. They are subtly different - the Nelson-class, for example, seem to have the mast and funnel close together and positioned on the stern. Whether it would be a typical example of a non-Washington battleship, I don't know, but it is better than nothing, I suppose.

For now, we'll use the pictures of RN ships for all states and then find examples for the French, Americans, Germans, Japanese, Russians and Bolivians later.

I've always believed that Nelson and Rodney were the front halves of what would have been far, far larger warships pre-Washington Treaty - that's why all their turrets are at the front. Anyway, they were laid down in 1922, which is just within our time frame, so I see no harm in using their pictures. Especially since the one I chose is a front view, so could just as easily be an N3 type ship.

Allenby said:

Click to expand...

Which side is the stern?

The stern is the back end of the ship opposite the bow (see diagram below).

frontend:_______bow

leftside: Port_________Starboard :rightside

rearend:_______stern

We still need to agree on models for cruisers, now that these have been divided into Heavy and Light types. I propose the following (TGW equivalent in italics):

Heavy Cruisers
0 - Ironclad (1875)
1 - Armoured Cruiser (1900) Armoured Cruiser
2 - Heavy Cruiser (1917)
3 - Improved Heavy Cruiser (1922)

Light Cruisers
0 - Protected Cruiser (1890) Basic Cruiser
1 - Light Cruiser (1905) Light Cruiser
2 - Improved Light Cruiser (1914) Improved Cruiser
3 - Advanced Light Cruiser (1917) Advanced Cruiser

Ironclads would cover the really old, outdated ships that some countries still had in service - many of them originally designed as battleships, but now relegated to "coastal defence ship" or similar designation. Some of the larger type/0 cruisers from TGW could be reclassified as these too.

The tech tree would go as follows:
The battlecruiser was a successor to the Armoured Cruiser, but also requires Dreadnought tech to be researched first.



As a possible variation, we could introduce an extra model of each type of cruiser: a 1914 Heavy type and a 1922 Light type. (Historically, nobody was building heavy cruisers in 1914, but they might have). This would make the tech levels more balanced post-1905:

HEAVY LIGHT
0 (1875) 0 (1890)
1 (1900) 1 (1905)
2 (1914) 2 (1914)
3 (1917) 3 (1917)
4 (1922) 4 (1922)

Thoughts?

And while you're thinking, here are some more pretty pictures of ships:




Since there is only one model of transport ship, which picture should we use?

Shadow Knight said:

The stern is the back end of the ship opposite the bow (see diagram below).

frontend:_______bow

leftside: Port_________Starboard :rightside

rearend:_______stern

Click to expand...

DUH!

I was wondering which was the bow and which was the stern of that particular battleship.

Zuckergußgebäck said:

I was wondering which was the bow and which was the stern of that particular battleship.

Click to expand...

The bow is on the left, the ship is sailing from right to left across the camera's field of view.

Although confusingly, the ship's jack is extending forward from its bow: so clearly it's not steaming very fast. (or has a very strong following wind)

Yes, that jack confused me aswell...

StephenT said:

Light Cruisers
0 - Protected Cruiser (1890) Basic Cruiser
1 - Light Cruiser (1905) Light Cruiser
2 - Improved Light Cruiser (1914) Improved Cruiser
3 - Advanced Light Cruiser (1917) Advanced Cruiser

Click to expand...

Would you consider it suitable enough to include the 'large light cruisers' as an available model? These were the strange creations of Lord Fisher of the Glorious-class - that these ended up as aircraft carriers probably demonstrates why they should probably be left out...

Ironclads should be included, yet I hate to think of them being used by the AI in the battle line. I assume, therefore, that the major powers will only have navies composed of ships commissioned post-1890?

I also note that there is a big leap from 1900 Armoured Cruiser to 1917 Heavy Cruiser - I hope that the player has to invest quite prodigiously before making that step?

I would simply have the improved or if appropriate advanced light cruiser be a pre-requisite for the early carrier. Thus bypassing that strange large light cruiser.

Make the 1917 Heavy Cruiser have several different pre-requisite techs, and rather high required skill level for each of the five tech requirements.

Johan Elisson said:

Or just set its historical year high.

/Johan

Click to expand...

Which is what I did. As soon as you've researched the 1900 Armoured Cruiser, you can start on the 1917 Heavy Cruiser - but its historical date will be 1917, so you'll have a big penalty...

We could even make the historical date 1920 if you want an even bigger penalty. Alternatively, insert an extra model between 1900 and 1917/20, as I suggested in the last paragraph of that post.

Historically, the battlecruiser was considered to be the successor to the armoured cruiser; it wasn't until after WW1 that people started making heavy cruisers again.

Allenby said:

Would you consider it suitable enough to include the 'large light cruisers' as an available model? These were the strange creations of Lord Fisher of the Glorious-class - that these ended up as aircraft carriers probably demonstrates why they should probably be left out...

Click to expand...

I think you answered your own question. They were a one-off, recognised as a mistake soon after entering service and never repeated. In a scenario where they have to be included, I'd treat them either as Heavy Cruisers, or as a lower model of Battlecruiser.

Ironclads should be included, yet I hate to think of them being used by the AI in the battle line. I assume, therefore, that the major powers will only have navies composed of ships commissioned post-1890?

Click to expand...

I dunno, it might be fun to see a proud fleet of ironclads steaming into battle against one dreadnought, which reduces them all to scrap inside four hours.

But seriously, I think that most of the Great Powers had already decommissioned all their ironclads, or at least converted them to training ships or harbour protection vessels. An exception might be ships like the German Siegfried-class "coast defence battleships" which were half the size of a "proper" battleship even at the time they were built (1890s). In TGW we treated them as pre-dreadnoughts (BB/0) but I think that's over-valueing them.

I'm quite happy with the suggested light and heavy cruiser models - they shall do splendidly, as long as the player doesn't find himself researching heavy cruisers ahead of battlecruisers with any ease.

A quick browse of Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1860-1905 reveals that the vast majority of Great Power ironclads were scrapped in the 1900s or beforehand, although there are a few obscure exceptions, such as the Wivern, a ship laid down in 1862 that serviced Hong Kong harbour throughout the First World War! Needless to say, ships like that ought to be left out...

As for the transport picture, I would choose the River Clyde - the vessel is more famous (or infamous) for the carrying of troops than Lusitania, thanks to Gallipoli.

We appear to have models battleship, light cruiser, heavy cruiser, transport, destroyer, submarine and carrier agreed upon. Regarding land units, infantry models are sorted; this leaves us with Headquarters, Guards Infantry, Assault Infantry, Armour Divisions, Reserve Infantry, Garrison Infantry, Cavalry, Light Infantry, Marine Infantry, Mountain Infantry and Militia. Most of these have already been done in TGW and probably won't need much alteration - for the new unit types, Assault Infantry shouldn't require more than one model, Armoured Divisions might require two (1919 and 1924 models, perhaps?) and Headquarters will probably need two, three or four models.

I think there ought to be more than one model of cavalry:

1890 Cavalry (predominantly sabre and lance orientated; used for shock action)
1902 Cavalry (predominantly mounted infantry orientated; used as mobile firepower)

In 1914, I would suppose that Britain would probably be alone in having the 1902 model by virtue of the experience of the Boer War, whereas the European armies, replete with Cuirassier and Uhlan-like regiments, would have the 1890 model?

Hi,

I thought I'd toss this in from the balcony. What about having a tech line lead from ironclads to coast defense ships? There were a lot of these built by various powers for divers reasons. CDS could be followed by monitors.

These one or two classes of vessels (which I would put in a separate category from BB/BC) would give us somewhere to file a lot of old/strange ships that could/did have an impact without trying to shoehorn them into a more conventional category.

Also, it seems odd to have torpedo boats lead to torpedo boat destroyers (eventually just destroyers) as the TBDs were developed to deal with the TBs and existed contemperaneously. Of course the TBDs eventually usurped the purpose of the TBs, but not until some time had passed.

As to the Courageous, Glorious and Furious ... It would be convenient to ignore them, but they probably should be some sort of misbegotten offshoot of the light cruiser and BC lines. I don't know what Lord Fisher was smoking, but I'm glad saner heads prevailed and turned them into CVs eventually. Though there was some time where poor Furious had a flightdeck AND her 18" X-turret. (Talk about neither fish nor fowl ...)

Just some thoughts. With the new naval system I am extremely interested in this mod and would be happy to help. I'm currently doing ship icons for HoI2.

V'ger said:

I thought I'd toss this in from the balcony. What about having a tech line lead from ironclads to coast defense ships? There were a lot of these built by various powers for divers reasons. CDS could be followed by monitors.

Click to expand...

When making TGW we had rather the same debate as to whether we should include gunboats or not, and decided that such ships were too small and insignificant to model in the game. I would think that the same would be true of monitors and coastal defence ships. As we have battleships, battlecruisers and carriers on a grand strategic level, we tend to think in terms of decisive sea clashes as opposed to minor operations involving the support of land units on the coast.

This point might apply to ironclads too - however, we do need something basic as a pre-requisite to the other vessels, and ironclads probably would be used in clashes between small nations.

V'ger said:

Also, it seems odd to have torpedo boats lead to torpedo boat destroyers (eventually just destroyers) as the TBDs were developed to deal with the TBs and existed contemperaneously. Of course the TBDs eventually usurped the purpose of the TBs, but not until some time had passed.

Click to expand...

It's better to have these vessels in the 'destroyer' file, really. Besides, there would be no room for torpedo boats under any other classification.

V'ger said:

Just some thoughts. With the new naval system I am extremely interested in this mod and would be happy to help. I'm currently doing ship icons for HoI2.

Click to expand...

How might you be able to help us? We'd be happy for your assistance.

How about these for models of HQ unit?

1870 HQ – General on a horse/in a tent with numerous officers and officials

1914 HQ – General in a house attached to a telephone; communication carried out by runners, pigeons, flares

1918 HQ – General in a house attached to a telephone, wireless and other means of communication; direct contact with air service; surrounded by numerous staff officers to account for the expansion of the army's 'tail' and creation of new branches of the army (tank corps, for example)

I am glad that you are accepting my proposals so passively - it makes things much easier.

I propose that there be two models of armoured division:

1919 model - of the type envisaged by J.F.C. Fuller involving the use of medium tanks over long distances.

1924 model (perhaps a later date?) - well armed, light tanks used for breakthrough, exploitation and encirclement.

Not passive acceptance, more the fact that I couldn't access the site last night and so this is the first chance I've had to post.

Allenby said:

A quick browse of Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1860-1905 reveals that the vast majority of Great Power ironclads were scrapped in the 1900s or beforehand, although there are a few obscure exceptions, such as the Wivern, a ship laid down in 1862 that serviced Hong Kong harbour throughout the First World War! Needless to say, ships like that ought to be left out...

Click to expand...

Somebody will have to go through in detail to decide on ship models - I'll do it, but we do have some keen new volunteers looking for work as well...

I mentioned the German Siegfried-class as possible ironclads; others might include the USS Oregon and the French Terrible class (an appropriate name for them!).

As for the transport picture, I would choose the River Clyde - the vessel is more famous (or infamous) for the carrying of troops than Lusitania, thanks to Gallipoli.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, although the Lusitania is also notorious for carrying munitions.

I think there ought to be more than one model of cavalry:

1890 Cavalry (predominantly sabre and lance orientated; used for shock action)
1902 Cavalry (predominantly mounted infantry orientated; used as mobile firepower)

In 1914, I would suppose that Britain would probably be alone in having the 1902 model by virtue of the experience of the Boer War, whereas the European armies, replete with Cuirassier and Uhlan-like regiments, would have the 1890 model?

Click to expand...

Sounds good. Part of me wants to suggest a third, intermediate model - Russian cavalry were much better than Austrian, for example, but possibly not up to the level of British. However, considering how useless cavalry was for most of this period (with a few exceptions) perhaps it isn't worth it to build in such subtle distinctions?

One possible option, however, is a final cavalry model called "dismounted cavalry" - with the exact same stats as an infantry division! Developing this tech and upgrading your cavalry units would therefore convert them all to infantry, which is basically what most of the Great Powers did during 1914-18.