• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
CV/CVL AA techs are different ones than BB/BC?
Yes.

Large warship radar should affect CV/CVL too.
It doesn't.

You missed out all the aircraft techs, which only the flattop and possibly the army is interested in.
They are either a part of the Army research budget or a part of the common one. The Navy should not be responsible for the whole aircraft industry, after all.

Since we do not have the budget to fund all our desired projects simultaneously, I assume that it will indeed be the case.
Inevitably, some projects will be completed sooner/later and sometimes there will only be one or two new slots for the Navy to use during the course of several months, so it will never be perfectly equal. The administration makes sure that everything is done the way it should be done.

Anyway, it seems that we agree on most issues. The differences between our positions are minor at this point.
 
Last edited:
Here is an updated research priority list for the Navy:

1. Doctrines concerning carriers, CAGs, battleships and cruisers, 1940 ones can be started in Dec 1939 if the budget allows it.
2. New BB and BC design techs (can be started in Dec 1939 if the budget allows it) and better carrier armour (only in 1940)
3. ASW techs and scout planes
4. Radar training, fire control etc.
5. CL AA
6. Naval infantry techs

Obviously, it's a de facto wish-list, but we should have one, after all ;)
 
Most Seaworthy Admirals,
I am deeply worried that you want to research both BB and BC, at nearly double the cost to only one of them, you should decide on one of them and keep to it else we will not be able to afford all our other wants.

Also HQ north sees it as the navy's task to keep the ASW development up, it would be best to build extra escorts too for it, but that might be to stretch the budget too much. Remember no ship nor army can survive if you do not keep the supplies flowing.
 
I am deeply worried that you want to research both BB and BC, at nearly double the cost to only one of them, you should decide on one of them and keep to it else we will not be able to afford all our other wants.
BC design tech will only be researched when the BC engine tech is up to date. Otherwise, it's pointless, because on its own the design tech doesn't do much good. Considering that we are already researching BC engines, the real increase in cost is not too great.
 
The battlewagon group wants to point out that we do not have any interest in planes and that all budgetary concerns should regard them as flattop responsibility, whether or not the army shares the burden in that particular case. The battlewagon budget can not suffer because of planes.
 
The battlewagon group wants to point out that we do not have any interest in planes and that all budgetary concerns should regard them as flattop responsibility, whether or not the army shares the burden in that particular case. The battlewagon budget can not suffer because of planes.
I disagree. Everyone benefits from air cover and air support. We will cover our share of the burden (CAG doctrines etc.), but things that are common or army-related will have no influence on our budget.
 
You can disagree all you want, the battlewagons won't accept having to participate in plane research. This is something completely not on our list.
 
You don't participate in anything. The Navy has its own budget and the same goes for the Army. However, some things are a part of the common budget (Homeland Affairs). With all due respect, Admiral, you are trying to change sth which nobody has had any issue with so far.
 
I'm not trying to change anything, I merely point out that planes are not considered as being part of the common budget.
 
I'm not trying to change anything, I merely point out that planes are not considered as being part of the common budget.
Admiral, one of the lastest Home Affairs list looked like this:

De-/En-cryption machines+
Industrial Efficiency*
Industrial Production *
Supplies Production
Repair Workshops
Fighter Defence doctrine & Interception Tactics & Central Fighter Command Structure

Supply throughput*
Supply Cost*
Rare Materials*
Combat radios
Education*
Agriculture
Radar*(only first *)
All single engine techs+

Nobody protested. Some of those things have been there for years now.
 
In that case, consider that I do protest now. The flattop faction can dedicate all the resources they want to planes, but I do not accept a cut on battleship research because of some upstarts trying to get things their way without considering their position.
 
The Battleship is Dead. They were crap at supporting my land troops, while the carriers could reach out and support us inland.
Also, If we wish to do a harbor strike, the carriers could do it and maybe destroy the enemy navy, giving us a breathing room. I may be a land person, but I advocate for the Carriers.

Also, on our alliance with Guanxi, I advise that we break it when Republican China is dead.
 
Gen. Cody
You suggest we betray the Emperors ally, one we bleed diplomats for years and who's betrayal would infuriate the USA?
 
Fighter research is in alls interest, they defend the homeland, protect the fleets, protect the army.
I agree with General Surt here. Fighters help everyone and CAG-specific techs are already covered by the Navy. Besides, the Army has already its hands full with many other technologies.

Gen. Cody
You suggest we betray the Emperors ally, one we bleed diplomats for years and who's betrayal would infuriate the USA?
I think that war with the USA is inevitable. The USA considers the Pacific Ocean as their sphere of influence, which is unacceptable from our point of view. However, I think that it is far too soon to decide the fate of the Guangxi Clique just now.
 
I think that war with the USA is inevitable. The USA considers the Pacific Ocean as their sphere of influence, which is unacceptable from our point of view. However, I think that it is far too soon to decide the fate of the Guangxi Clique just now.

While war with USA might be inevitable, we are not ready and certainly not ready to fight someone who has 400IC if at war, it would be best to postpone it a bit.
 
The Battleship is Dead. They were crap at supporting my land troops, while the carriers could reach out and support us inland.
Also, If we wish to do a harbor strike, the carriers could do it and maybe destroy the enemy navy, giving us a breathing room. I may be a land person, but I advocate for the Carriers.

I think I pointed out that the carriers were of some use regarding the land battles, however, the navy has to think about the sea first and foremost. If you want a specialised land support branch, go see the carrier admirals. The battleships dominate the sea and will continue to do so. It was thought that small vessels with torpedoes would end their reign, they did not. It was thought that submarines would dominate the seas, they do not. Carriers will share this fate.

Furthermore, I am deeply disappointed by the army for what can only be described as a stab in the back. The battleship advocates were the ones who volunteerly postponed the construction of their ship so the resources and capacities could be diverted to the enlargement of the army. The generals would have had to do with fewer troops and / or worse equipment if this hadn't been done.
 
The ships have their own AA weapons, an ever increasing number of barrels of all calibres I might add.

While that is true and might discourage the lighter CV based planes our fighters primary role is to stop the heavier land based bombers from harming our expensive fleets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.