Parthia HY2 1918

[Kaiser Kirk]

I seem to be lagging in my turn reporting.
And I've got to get 1919.0 out in the next
week or two to get ready for 1919.5 !!!

So for 1918.5 I made it simple.

Now that I've got 1915 carriers developed,
I really should be starting the reconstructions
for some trial ships and laying some new vessels
down.....

But I'm behind already, so I'll do that in 1919.0
so pouring funds into development for 1 more turn,
finishing 7 IC in the process, but not starting reconstructions,
or scrappings, or new classes of ships, pretty vanilla.

Research is gun-centric.
Finish the 1915 Submarines
Continue work on the 365L50 and 255L47 and 15L60.

As usual, I am taking the 'free mount', but also designing one.
This reflects Parthia having competing designers and designs,
with the one that tests better going on warships.

Basically, I don't want a situation like the Implacable
who's electric turret drives were basically non-functional.

you will note there are several gun mounts I have finished but
not moved to my encyclopedia yet - bad me.

To pay for all that I've reduced 2 techs to minimal for this turn.

Continued the ships under construction.
The two Ranger class cruisers finish, as do 4 patrol sloops.
As now usual, 4 new patrol sloops are laid down.
Also as usual, 2 1910 MSW-E and 16 MTB-As are built.

Work continues on only 1 of the 4 drydocks under construction

[The Rock Doctor]

Budget crunches, eh?

[TacCovert4]

Oh Deary me....budget crunches.  Must be nice, having a budget.....

[Kaiser Kirk]

Actually making trade offs for the long term and balancing things
takes more work.
The research budget is complicated right now. I could use, like 12 more BP to =+$3 reseach,
but that's not happening in the near future.
Plus I need to redo my reconstruction plans...again.

[The Rock Doctor]

Yeah, the reconstructions are cash-intensive for sure.  I'm starting to look at mid-life options for my earliest dreadnoughts and trying to decide what I want to spend on them.

I've concluded that it's generally not a big deal to be a year or two behind in techs, from a budget perspective; by and large, the major powers are still "leading edge", they just might lag behind one of their competitors by a year or two.  Not critical in the grand scheme of things.

[Jefgte]

Actually making trade offs for the long term and balancing things
takes more work...

OOOOOHHH YESSSS !!!   ::)

Difficult to have a well balanced Fleet.

[TacCovert4]

Yeah, the reconstructions are cash-intensive for sure.  I'm starting to look at mid-life options for my earliest dreadnoughts and trying to decide what I want to spend on them.

I've concluded that it's generally not a big deal to be a year or two behind in techs, from a budget perspective; by and large, the major powers are still "leading edge", they just might lag behind one of their competitors by a year or two.  Not critical in the grand scheme of things.

I've looked at my surviving Dreadnoughts from the 'early classes'....aka the Implacables....and decided that there's no reconstructing to be done.  The 11in guns are a bottleneck that I can't really get past, so no need to bother.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I made a whole suite of guns to drop into old barbettes about 1913... and updated it about 1916...  and those un-reconstructed ships (up to date FC though) have now been conserved to a 'reserve' fleet in the OOB, on the theory that after we've gutted each other's front lines, the reserves might not seem as bad.

Plus there's that Seaplane carrier conversion I wanted to do, and then realized we needed carrier rules, and long story short, now I have to make comply with the carrier rules.
Oh, and the need to start exploring carriers in earnest....

[The Rock Doctor]

There's probably some merit to the reserve theory.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Was starting to see what I will be looking at in 1919.0 (and then 1919.5)
and noticed I misread the docks screen - Ironic since I made it -

I didn't expand one by 60m, I expanded 4 by 20m, completing 3, the fourth went from  60m to 40m to go.

Building these cruiser docks scattered around the globe has been important but expensive.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Also,
going through my artillery research since 1910.0,
I find I really should have tracked it better.

I was vaguely considering researching new versions of all existing mounts.
...apparently I've done that with several without being aware of it.

I made a 90AA 2-gun mount in 1913...ok...and then again in 1917.
I can live with that, planes are upgrading fast, having a more recent mounting makes sense.

Now the 165L43 QF, I seem to have developed in 1911, added a 2-gun turret in 1913...and then went and researched the 2-gun a second time.
For basic anti-surface work, I really don't think the there's much difference from 1913 to 1917.

BUT...that's not all,
I researched 130mm 2-gun M&H when I first developed it in 1913...and now again in 1918.
I also did that with 120mm 2-gun M&H in 1911 and 1918.

So, at the very least, my secondary mountings will be good.

The downside is that I was hoping to find a triple or quad 180...no such luck.

[The Rock Doctor]

Something fishy going on with the naval artillery researchers.  Have they been buying up properties along the coast in greater numbers lately?

[Jefgte]

I also made a duplicate.
This is why I list now in the HY report next to
"Artillery & Mountings Research"

305mm-Greenboy 387,4kg
343mm-Geeenboy 639,6kg
381mm-Greenboy 871kg
Available
Green => valid
Red => In progress
T2x140
T2x102 - 1919H2
T2x120 - 1919H2
T2x152 - 1919H2
T2x191 - 1917H2
T3x191
T3x234
T3x254
T2x305/45-Dreadnough - 1915H1
T2x15''- QE class - 1915H1

[Kaiser Kirk]

I have a long list style that hasn't been updated.

I'm trying a new format where I have the gun with MV and shell weight down the left column, then columns for each type of mounting, and I can put dates in the different spots.

What would help is if I refit my ships and get them on a more limited number of weapon types.