No Pre-Dreadnought BB or Aircraft Carrier?

[unmerged(84406)]

A fairer comparison would be with HMS Lord Nelson, the battleship the British built immediately before Dreadnought:

No it isn't. The design was updated from 6in guns to 9in guns as an initial application of some of the changes that produced the Dreadnought - also the Admiralty rejected the proposal to change it to an all 12in battleship. So it is more a hybrid between pre- and post dreadnoughts. Also the upgrade of the secondary armament didn't work out very well as it was found that it was difficult to distinguish between the fall of shots from the 12in and 9in guns, and this was a further factor that pushed many nations to adopting the all big guns battleship.

Guns:
Dreadnought - 10 x 12-in
Lord Nelson - 4x 12-in, 10x 9.2-in

Armour (main belt)
Dreadnought - 279mm
Lord Nelson - 305mm
(As well as thicker armour, Nelson also had superior armour distribution, Dreadnought's belt was almost submerged at full load)

Except Dreadnought had the same armour on the main Turrets, and the Nelson had 2/3 as much on its secondary turrets as the main so the Nelson was more likely to be reduced in effectiveness due to the loss of a battery

Propulsion:
Dreadnought - 23,000hp giving 21 knots
Lord Nelson - 16,750hp giving 18 knots

The Dreadnought has better long-range firepower but at a short engagement ranges Lord Nelson has more firepower, better protection, and will win.

If the Nelson can use it 9in guns and they can penetrate the armour then the Nelson would have 75% of the Dreadnought's firepower if not then only 50%.

NOTE: Previously I quoted the Deutschland as having 60%/30% of the firepower of the Dreadnought that should be 50%/40% and thus needing a 3:1 ratio after armour - one of HMS Dreadnoughts batteries is masked from any direction and any direction that the Deutschland or Lord Nelson can fire more than half of their secondary armament will mask half of their main batteries.

 

[unmerged(84406)]

Minor correction - the Grand Fleet had no pre-dreadnoughts at Jutland (the remaining King Edward VII ships plus Dreadnought herself were part of the Channel Fleet).

You are correct.

Scheer did take the remsaining squadron of pre-dreadnoughts along with him, something he afterwards said he regretted.

Steve.

Hindsight is wonderful. If they hadn't taken the pre-dreadnoughts it would just have made their fleet smaller, and at times the Grand Fleet was in the situation where they could only fire at part of the High Seas fleet and having no pre-dreadnoughts would just have meant that they were firing at dreadnoughts. I suspect that in the end they would have lost less ships but a greater proportion of their "sea power"

 

[Alex_brunius]

What puzzles me the most is that there is no mention of subs actually, now that they finally have put in blockade mechanics into the game. It shouldn't been that hard to have a separate stat effecting blockade efficiency and give high values off it to subs while giving destroyers or smaller ships a separate sub attack stat.

To me its seems the mechanics finally can support subs, perhaps even better than they can in HoI3, and most certainly lightyears ahead of Victoria 1.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Mind you guys, Dreadnought was not actually the first all big gun ship that was laid down. The Japanese Satsuma class was, though it was both finished later and finished with a downgraded battery to boot due to the economic considerations caused by the Russo-Japanese War.

Incidentally, the 9.2"/50 Mark XI as used on Lord Nelson of 1905 had capability to penetrate 234mm of steel at 4.2kms. The contemporary battle of Tsushima started at around 7-6kms. At this date, the convinience of not having to spot the fall of multitude of different shells might be the more important factor then extra long range firepower (though the issue with the shells would still be there if another ship was shooting at the same target).

I think the basic issue is that whenever a power is attempting to threaten Britain's colonial dominance, they should have the opportunity to invest in creating a modern navy which has a qualitative edge over Britain's long list of old ships - and Britain should have the opportunity to invest in a modern navy to stop them.

This is easier with a more detailed set of warship models than it is if you give the Ironclad a 40-year dominance and then the Dreadnought another 40-year dominance.

Indeed, though depending on how the tech effects work on ships, this might already be in. For example, if the hardware techs don't upgrade existing ships, the 20 year old ironclad might be as obsolete when compared to the newer ironclads as the last ironclads are when compared to dreadnoughts.

 

[TheLand]

Satsuma is often quoted as having been laid down as all big gun but I have never been able to find evidence for this - Evans and Peattie seem to indicate the opposite in "Kaigun"

I'm not arguing that Dreadnought was worse on the whole than Lord Nelson - just that the former did not render the latter "instantly obsolete" with "revolutionary" breakthrough: Dreadnought represented a larger than usual increment but not a paradigm shift.

 

[Mozer]

Satsuma is often quoted as having been laid down as all big gun but I have never been able to find evidence for this - Evans and Peattie seem to indicate the opposite in "Kaigun"

I'm not arguing that Dreadnought was worse on the whole than Lord Nelson - just that the former did not render the latter "instantly obsolete" with "revolutionary" breakthrough: Dreadnought represented a larger than usual increment but not a paradigm shift.

I thought that the combination of "all big guns" and the speed and reliability (from turbine propulsion?) made all other ships, maybe not obsolete, but at least hopeless outdated in one go?

 

[dnalor87]

Victoria: Revolutions at least tried to be as accurate and detailed as possible as much as the engine allowed, but if a sequel to a game which launches this Friday isn't more detailed than a game that launched 4 years ago, then I would call that a rip-off. What one can expect of a sequel is more of everything, not less! The fact that they're omitting the submarine, torpedo boats, destroyers, corvettes, minelayers, minesweepers, aircraft carriers, pre-dreadnoughts and battleships, and even the HQ attachment is sad at least. It all added depth and realism in Vic: R and Victoria 2 will seem boring, plain and too simplistic in this department.

Thanks to a great many modders, we, who are interested in keeping these kinds of games to a level of quality and realism, can put our trust in these people, unless of course Paradox makes its own expansion, which at this point in time is duly needed. For shame.

 

[unmerged(41083)]

I'm not arguing that Dreadnought was worse on the whole than Lord Nelson - just that the former did not render the latter "instantly obsolete" with "revolutionary" breakthrough: Dreadnought represented a larger than usual increment but not a paradigm shift.

You need to respond to sagji's rather devestating rebuttal rather than just ignoring it then.

e: also while dreadnaughts are important as a final shift in naval combat, I'm unconvinced about mines and aircraft carriers and while there's an argument for submarines, you need to include a convoy mechanic that then permeates the entire game for them to make sense. You don't even get torpedo boats and corvettes in HOI3, why would you want them in vicky?

 

[unmerged(84406)]

Satsuma is often quoted as having been laid down as all big gun but I have never been able to find evidence for this - Evans and Peattie seem to indicate the opposite in "Kaigun"

I found this on wikipedia

"Laid down before Dreadnought and intended to carry 12-inch guns, she should have been completed as the world's first all-big-gun battleship. However there were not enough Armstrong 1904 pattern 12-inch guns available, and 10-inch guns had to be substituted for all but four of the weapons. Thus, it was that future all-big gun battleships were to be called "dreadnoughts", and not "satsumas"." (Jane's "Battleships of the 20th century").

Presumably you can check it up in Jane's.
It also describes it as a semi-dreadnought and as a variation on the Lord Nelson class. Which sort of supports my argument that the Nelsons weren't really a pre-dreadnought.

I'm not arguing that Dreadnought was worse on the whole than Lord Nelson - just that the former did not render the latter "instantly obsolete" with "revolutionary" breakthrough: Dreadnought represented a larger than usual increment but not a paradigm shift.

But you are comparing it with something that was already half way there and were commissioned 2 years later than the Dreadnought - so not a typical 1906 pre-dreadnought yet still way out classed.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Here are some firepower statistics for some of this ships in question, as well as couple of extra dreadnoughts. Getting very OT here though, which is why I avoided posting such things before.

(Edit) Whoops, all preliminary statistics taken from this site: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm

Those are all for broadsides, incidentally. 6" and lower guns got culled.

Note that Satsuma should propably use RoF of 1,5 and 2 for her guns (I used 1 and 1,5). The main battery guns in particular are essentially the same thing as the Dreadnought's ones (for which I used 1,5). Unless there was something really wrong with Satsuma's mountings.

SMS Deutschland (1903)

Main Battery, 4 x 28 cm/40 (11") SK L/40

8 shells per minute, 1920 kg/minute

Secondary Battery, 7 x 17 cm/40 (6.75") SK L/40

35 shells per minute, 2198 kg/minute

Satsuma (1905)

Main Battery, 4 x 30 cm/45 (12") 41st Year Type

4 shells per minute, 1544 kg/minute

Secondary Battery, 6 x 25 cm/45 (10") 41st Year Type

9 shells per minute, 2115 kg/minute

HMS Dreadnought (1905)

Main Battery, 8 x 12"/45 (30.5 cm) Mark X

12 shells per minute, 4632 kg/minute

Fusô (1912)

Main Battery, 12 x 36 cm/45 (14") 41st Year Type

24 shells per minute, 15240 kg/minute

USS Iowa (1940)

Main Battery, 9 x 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7

18 shells per minute, 22050 kg/minute

 

[Sark]

Victoria: Revolutions at least tried to be as accurate and detailed as possible as much as the engine allowed, but if a sequel to a game which launches this Friday isn't more detailed than a game that launched 4 years ago, then I would call that a rip-off. What one can expect of a sequel is more of everything, not less! The fact that they're omitting the submarine, torpedo boats, destroyers, corvettes, minelayers, minesweepers, aircraft carriers, pre-dreadnoughts and battleships, and even the HQ attachment is sad at least. It all added depth and realism in Vic: R and Victoria 2 will seem boring, plain and too simplistic in this department.

Thanks to a great many modders, we, who are interested in keeping these kinds of games to a level of quality and realism, can put our trust in these people, unless of course Paradox makes its own expansion, which at this point in time is duly needed. For shame.

Victoria 2 seems to be more of a sequel to Victoria 1 (vanilla) then a sequel to the Revolutions version. Which isn't really a surprise, if you consider other Paradox titles. HOI3 didn't incorporate everything from the HOI2 series, for example. Some things are going to come in expansions.

 

[TheLand]

I found this on wikipedia.

Yay. Way to go with the research.

Basically there are different accounts in different books. The one real study of the Japanese navy I have basically says "Satsuma - nothing to see here"

 

[TheLand]

But you are comparing it with something that was already half way there and were commissioned 2 years later than the Dreadnought - so not a typical 1906 pre-dreadnought yet still way out classed.

This is sort of the point.

What was the alternative the Royal Navy had to building Dreadnoughts? Basically, build more Lord Nelsons.

So what do you compare the Dreadnought with? Lord Nelson - not an older class of pre-dreadnought from 10 years ago, not a German class of pre-dreadnought build under different budget constraints.

Saying the "Lord Nelsons were halfway there to the Dreadnought" is to assume that the Dreadnought was the revolutionary change and see the Lord Nelson class as a stage in evolution to Dreadnought perfection.

edit: BTW if anyone really wants to see my view on the Satsuma, have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dreadnought#Origins_-_again

 

[Sovetskysoyuz]

Victoria: Revolutions at least tried to be as accurate and detailed as possible as much as the engine allowed, but if a sequel to a game which launches this Friday isn't more detailed than a game that launched 4 years ago, then I would call that a rip-off. What one can expect of a sequel is more of everything, not less!

What one can expect of a sequel is an improvement, not more of everything. This is the sort of thinking that leads to The Land Before Time MDCCCCLXXXIV and similar shovelware sequels. Paradox made a design decision to streamline the navy, and that should be judged on the outcome, not on the fact that they streamlined it.

 

[abeth]

So long as the mechanics aren't fundamentally altered, and the gameplay is still riveting, I could care less if there are 4 ship types or 400. All the Ricky ship addons and types offered were different stat variations on what amounted to the same thing, and one ship type was obviously better than the rest.

Given Paradox's history with tech upgrades lending minor bonuses I'm sure one DN will not be the same as the next, leading to heavy research (tech tree) and production (MOAR!) of the navy.

 

[unmerged(84406)]

Yay. Way to go with the research.

Basically there are different accounts in different books. The one real study of the Japanese navy I have basically says "Satsuma - nothing to see here"

You said you hadn't seen anything (reliable) that supported the first claim - and the quote from Jane's should help.

This is sort of the point.

What was the alternative the Royal Navy had to building Dreadnoughts? Basically, build more Lord Nelsons.

So what do you compare the Dreadnought with? Lord Nelson - not an older class of pre-dreadnought from 10 years ago, not a German class of pre-dreadnought build under different budget constraints.

Saying the "Lord Nelsons were halfway there to the Dreadnought" is to assume that the Dreadnought was the revolutionary change and see the Lord Nelson class as a stage in evolution to Dreadnought perfection.

There was a design philosophy change from "big and small guns" to "all big guns". The design for the Lord Nelsons was altered because of that change so they represent a "big and medium guns". If you don't like the Deutschland as an exemplar of true pre-dreadnoughts how about the Lord Nelsons as originally designed with the 6in secondary.

 

[TheLand]

There was a design philosophy change from "big and small guns" to "all big guns". The design for the Lord Nelsons was altered because of that change so they represent a "big and medium guns". If you don't like the Deutschland as an exemplar of true pre-dreadnoughts how about the Lord Nelsons as originally designed with the 6in secondary.

What's this concept of "true pre-dreadnought"?

You are talking like there was one fundamental design concept revealed on stone tablets some time around 1890 which was the "true pre-dreadnought" and another revealed in a burning bush in 1905 which was the "true dreadnought" with the latter making the former obsolete.

This is simply not how it worked. There was a succession of design concepts each of which represented a response to the tactical, technological and financial landscape which the designers worked on and which tended to result in incremental improvements.

Let's look at the Canopus class - built 1896 to 1902. They had 6 inches of Krupp cemented armour. They would have been hopelessly outclassed by Lord Nelson which had twice as much armour, and even whose 9.2in secondary armament would be able to penetrate the Canopus's armour at any realistic range. That's an example of a battleship being made obsolete - Dreadnought or no Dreadnought.

And equally the Canopuses themselves were the first to incorporate Krupp cemented armour, which was the standard used by every subsequent battleship into the 20th century - an innovation as significant as turbine propulsion or all-big-gun armament...

 

[unmerged(205556)]

We need to see if naval AI actually works before worrying about them implementing several ship types.

A great concern of mine also is the speed at which time progresses. In real life 20-30 years is a good chunk of time. For many of us it contains the entire spans of our lives. And yet, that time frame can go by in a blink of an eye in Victoria. If the steps between ship types is too small you will have ships becoming obsolete before you have a chance to use them.

I think EU3 handled it very well. There were different ship types, and I'm sure some ships existed that may not have been modeled but there was enough space between upgrades to make upgrading matter.

It would really suck if every 5-10 years my navy was out of date because of a new ship type. Many of the ship types that could be modded in probably wouldn't be built because players would wait and do upgrades every 20 years.

 

[TheLand]

We need to see if naval AI actually works before worrying about them implementing several ship types.

EU3's naval AI is actually fairly bright (and I haven't even played HTTH) so hopefully this wont' be a problem.

It would really suck if every 5-10 years my navy was out of date because of a new ship type. Many of the ship types that could be modded in probably wouldn't be built because players would wait and do upgrades every 20 years.

Obviously, players don't approach shipbuilding in the same way as navies did historically. A player tends to splurge out a lot of ships all at once (particularly when they are playing quickly) while navies historically built a few every year.

But I think games should tend to reward forward planning - so long as momentary inattentiveness doesn't result in a player getting completely screwed over.

 

[Biges]

Bah! Some people just do not understand marketing.
You have to omit some thing so that you may add them later in an expansion