www.navalism.org

Main Archive => Navalism 3 Armed Forces => Armed Forces => New Ship Designs => Topic started by: Desertfox on April 12, 2007, 05:45:13 PM

Title: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Desertfox on April 12, 2007, 05:45:13 PM
Quick and dirty design. The ship would be designed in NS but built in New Zion. If it was built. What does New Zion have in terms of infrastructure?


Jerusalem, New Zion Battle Cruiser laid down 1906 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   12,621 t light; 13,347 t standard; 14,025 t normal; 14,568 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   551.84 ft / 550.00 ft x 70.00 ft x 25.50 ft (normal load)
   168.20 m / 167.64 m x 21.34 m  x 7.77 m

Armament:
      8 - 11.00" / 279 mm guns (4x2 guns), 665.50lbs / 301.87kg shells, 1906 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
      8 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1906 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, evenly spread
      8 - 4.00" / 102 mm guns in single mounts, 32.00lbs / 14.51kg shells, 1906 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
      8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.88kg shells, 1915 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 6,460 lbs / 2,930 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 120
   8 - 18.0" / 457.2 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   320.00 ft / 97.54 m   10.00 ft / 3.05 m
   Ends:   4.00" / 102 mm   230.00 ft / 70.10 m   10.00 ft / 3.05 m
   Upper:   4.00" / 102 mm   320.00 ft / 97.54 m   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
     Main Belt covers 90 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   4.00" / 102 mm      10.0" / 254 mm
   3rd:   4.00" / 102 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 4.00" / 102 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 3 shafts, 35,235 shp / 26,285 Kw = 24.00 kts
   Range 5,700nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,221 tons

Complement:
   643 - 837

Cost:
   £1.344 million / $5.377 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 807 tons, 5.8 %
   Armour: 4,402 tons, 31.4 %
      - Belts: 2,010 tons, 14.3 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,393 tons, 9.9 %
      - Armour Deck: 949 tons, 6.8 %
      - Conning Tower: 50 tons, 0.4 %
   Machinery: 1,602 tons, 11.4 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,710 tons, 40.7 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,404 tons, 10.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 100 tons, 0.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     16,569 lbs / 7,515 Kg = 24.9 x 11.0 " / 279 mm shells or 2.2 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.05
   Metacentric height 3.2 ft / 1.0 m
   Roll period: 16.3 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.86
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.26

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.500
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7.86 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 23.45 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 47 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 40
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      21.00 ft / 6.40 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Mid (50 %):      17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Stern:      17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Average freeboard:   17.32 ft / 5.28 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 81.9 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 115.6 %
   Waterplane Area: 25,652 Square feet or 2,383 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 99 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 146 lbs/sq ft or 711 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.95
      - Longitudinal: 1.53
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: swamphen on April 12, 2007, 06:16:34 PM
Should this be laid down in New Zion, the Reich might decide to take pre-emptive action.

(210mm shells + dockyard = Ship-shattering Ka-Booms)

8)
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Ithekro on April 12, 2007, 06:19:23 PM
I would think they would have a more defensive minded fleet, probably with relatively showllow draft depending on how deep that rift is in Africa.
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Borys on April 12, 2007, 06:21:36 PM
Quote from: Ithekro on April 12, 2007, 06:19:23 PM
I would think they would have a more defensive minded fleet, probably with relatively showllow draft depending on how deep that rift is in Africa.
Bottomless.
Borys
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: P3D on April 12, 2007, 07:07:47 PM
I do not think Zion has mcuh heavy industry. It is probably limited to lvl-0/1 drydocks to repair ships purchased abroad, and a fraction of BP.
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Desertfox on April 12, 2007, 07:11:48 PM
Not if NS can convince them that they NEED this ship! ;D Swampy, Im just going to have to convinve them to lay down this ship. That way no one will complain when I pre-empt that Firajistan Super Cruiser...

Updated version with an extra knot and Caliph Guns.

Jerusalem, New Zion (Swiss designed) Battle Cruiser laid down 1906 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   12,404 t light; 13,108 t standard; 13,779 t normal; 14,316 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   552.19 ft / 550.00 ft x 71.00 ft x 24.70 ft (normal load)
   168.31 m / 167.64 m x 21.64 m  x 7.53 m

Armament:
      8 - 10.00" / 254 mm guns (4x2 guns), 500.00lbs / 226.80kg shells, 1906 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts - superfiring
      8 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1906 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, evenly spread
      8 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1906 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 4,972 lbs / 2,255 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 150
   4 - 18.0" / 457.2 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   300.00 ft / 91.44 m   10.00 ft / 3.05 m
   Ends:   4.00" / 102 mm   250.00 ft / 76.20 m   10.00 ft / 3.05 m
   Upper:   4.00" / 102 mm   310.00 ft / 94.49 m   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
     Main Belt covers 84 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   10.0" / 254 mm   5.00" / 127 mm      10.0" / 254 mm
   3rd:   4.00" / 102 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 2.50" / 64 mm, Conning tower: 5.00" / 127 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 40,881 shp / 30,497 Kw = 25.00 kts
   Range 5,700nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,207 tons

Complement:
   635 - 826

Cost:
   £1.216 million / $4.865 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 622 tons, 4.5 %
   Armour: 4,530 tons, 32.9 %
      - Belts: 1,966 tons, 14.3 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 1,299 tons, 9.4 %
      - Armour Deck: 1,203 tons, 8.7 %
      - Conning Tower: 62 tons, 0.4 %
   Machinery: 1,858 tons, 13.5 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,324 tons, 38.6 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,376 tons, 10.0 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 70 tons, 0.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     17,333 lbs / 7,862 Kg = 34.7 x 10.0 " / 254 mm shells or 2.3 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
   Metacentric height 3.6 ft / 1.1 m
   Roll period: 15.8 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.60
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.500
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7.75 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 23.45 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 41
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      25.00 ft / 7.62 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Mid (50 %):      17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Stern:      17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Average freeboard:   17.64 ft / 5.38 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 79.7 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 125.8 %
   Waterplane Area: 26,018 Square feet or 2,417 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 104 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 135 lbs/sq ft or 661 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.96
      - Longitudinal: 1.46
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Alikchi on April 12, 2007, 08:29:27 PM
I like the new version.. seems cheap but speedy.
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Desertfox on April 12, 2007, 09:42:53 PM
QuoteI do not think Zion has mcuh heavy industry. It is probably limited to lvl-0/1 drydocks to repair ships purchased abroad, and a fraction of BP.
Shouldnt we keep it as a Potential Player Nation? I would think 3 BPs, and say between $50-70 should be adequate. Allows some shipbuilding but not too much.


A smaller, cheaper, less threatning version. This is a prestige project, nothing more.

Jerusalem, New Zion (Swiss designed) Battle Cruiser laid down 1906 (Engine 1909)

Displacement:
   9,900 t light; 10,465 t standard; 11,055 t normal; 11,527 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   552.19 ft / 550.00 ft x 70.00 ft x 20.10 ft (normal load)
   168.31 m / 167.64 m x 21.34 m  x 6.13 m

Armament:
      6 - 10.00" / 254 mm guns (3x2 guns), 500.00lbs / 226.80kg shells, 1906 Model
     Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
     on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
      8 - 6.00" / 152 mm guns in single mounts, 108.00lbs / 48.99kg shells, 1906 Model
     Breech loading guns in casemate mounts
     on side, evenly spread
      8 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1906 Model
     Quick firing guns in deck mounts
     on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
   Weight of broadside 3,972 lbs / 1,802 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 149
   4 - 18.0" / 457.2 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
   - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   7.00" / 178 mm   305.00 ft / 92.96 m   7.00 ft / 2.13 m
   Ends:   4.00" / 102 mm   245.00 ft / 74.68 m   10.00 ft / 3.05 m
   Upper:   4.00" / 102 mm   305.00 ft / 92.96 m   5.00 ft / 1.52 m
     Main Belt covers 85 % of normal length

   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   7.00" / 178 mm   4.00" / 102 mm      7.00" / 178 mm
   3rd:   4.00" / 102 mm         -               -

   - Armour deck: 2.00" / 51 mm, Conning tower: 4.00" / 102 mm

Machinery:
   Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
   Direct drive, 4 shafts, 35,827 shp / 26,727 Kw = 25.00 kts
   Range 5,700nm at 10.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,062 tons

Complement:
   538 - 700

Cost:
   £0.992 million / $3.966 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 497 tons, 4.5 %
   Armour: 3,013 tons, 27.3 %
      - Belts: 1,287 tons, 11.6 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 734 tons, 6.6 %
      - Armour Deck: 949 tons, 8.6 %
      - Conning Tower: 43 tons, 0.4 %
   Machinery: 1,629 tons, 14.7 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,622 tons, 41.8 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,155 tons, 10.4 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 140 tons, 1.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     14,787 lbs / 6,707 Kg = 29.6 x 10.0 " / 254 mm shells or 2.1 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
   Metacentric height 3.7 ft / 1.1 m
   Roll period: 15.3 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.56
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 1.29

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.500
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7.86 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 23.45 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 48 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 55
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      25.00 ft / 7.62 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Mid (50 %):      17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Stern:      17.00 ft / 5.18 m
      - Average freeboard:   17.64 ft / 5.38 m
   Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 84.4 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 146.3 %
   Waterplane Area: 25,652 Square feet or 2,383 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 106 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 125 lbs/sq ft or 608 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.97
      - Longitudinal: 1.31
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Ithekro on April 13, 2007, 01:07:49 AM
Well the truth seem to be that they themselves can't build it...but the Swiss can build it for them using Swiss BP but Zion funds.  (With only 1,000 tons produced a year it would take a very long time for Zion to build any of these ships.)
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: The Rock Doctor on April 13, 2007, 06:28:45 AM
If Firanj and New Zion are to be player nations, why are you guys designing navies for them?
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Borys on April 13, 2007, 06:31:44 AM
Ahoj!
They have nothing else to sim, so they are designing proxy navies.
And for the time being we are undermanned, with no prospective players for those countires on the horison.
Borys
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: The Rock Doctor on April 13, 2007, 06:57:21 AM
If that's the case, I'd rather see the moderators sponsor design competitions than for inidividual players to adopt NPCs that might somehow come to be satellites or proxies to the PCs.
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Korpen on April 13, 2007, 07:01:43 AM
QuoteIf that's the case, I'd rather see the moderators sponsor design competitions than for inidividual players to adopt NPCs that might somehow come to be satellites or proxies to the PCs.
I agree, also, design competitions are fun :)
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Desertfox on April 13, 2007, 08:11:33 AM
I still think they need more BPs otherwise it wont be a viable Potential Player Nation.

QuoteIf Firanj and New Zion are to be player nations, why are you guys designing navies for them?
The DKB offered Firajistan a nice design. NS is just returning the favor, offering the Jews an even nicer design. ;D Note my design would come with no strings attached and the plans would be free, hard to beat that deal.
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: The Rock Doctor on April 13, 2007, 08:20:40 AM
The budding DKB/NS rivalry is amusing, I give you that.
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: maddox on April 13, 2007, 08:28:19 AM
New Zion, with the Italians and the Deutsche Kaiserreigh as imperialistic neighbors, and the Caliphate bend on religious righteousnessNew Zion has every reason to invest in  GOOD coastal defences and a huge, good equiped and trained army.

So, the New Zion elders, among the best busnessmen on the world are interested in these matters, and do ,on regular base, send out internatial design competitions. But strangely enough, no winner was ever build.
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Ithekro on April 13, 2007, 11:04:11 AM
Firanj is sort of that thorn type NPC.  There to keep a PC in check.  With the finding of the old Caliphate vessels, the only new designs are for the Lakes (which wouldn't have been covered in the earlier sim as there were no huge lakes in Australia) and the supercruisers to annoy the Swiss.

I don't know if Firanj will be a real PC nation, I've more or less left the interal working alone and just focused on the fleet design to keep the Swiss occupied.  New Zion seems like it can't be a real PC nation...it is just way to poor to be anything until maybe the 1930s.
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Desertfox on April 13, 2007, 11:07:51 AM
But why should it be so poor? One of the reasons we restarted was to give new players a chance. And if all the NPCs are that poor where will they start? I think each of the NPCs should have at least a fighting chance not too much but then again not to little, otherwise PC will just be able to run NPCs roughshod.
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Borys on April 13, 2007, 11:15:41 AM
Ahoj!
The world has its China's and Russia's or France's, and it has its San Marinos, Luxemburgs, Liberias ...
Borys
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Ithekro on April 13, 2007, 11:24:22 AM
I don't think this New Zion was meant to be a player nation.  The two-three larger Indian nations, Persia, now limited Khazaria, Eygpt, Peru, the Union del Sur-America (Isn't someone playing Italy?), Maoria could be one or many smaller nations, and that white area in Africa (Nigeria?).  Firanj maybe at some point as well, maybe Kiev, Siam, New Zion, and Liberia.
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: swamphen on April 13, 2007, 12:36:39 PM
NZ could be a PC for somebody wanting something small, but until then it should be 'kept up to date' at least with regards to its fleet (IMHO, the NPCs should be pretty much 'turn-key packages' with regard to their naval forces at least).

I agree that the majority of the NZ's treasury will be aimed at land defences (vs. Egypt, likely, primarily, then the Reich, then the Italians, Dutch and French). I would expect that the 'inherited' CofC battleships are in sorry shape, while the ex-Abyssinian ships would be better maintained but woefully obsolete. Torpedobooten and gunboats would be the first priority, then small cruisers. Perhaps one 'national pride' large ship built early, but that would likely lead to covert* or overt action against it; the Reich is willing to tolerate the horsefly on its flank only as long as it refrains from biting...


* - Abwehr. They're everywhere you want to be.  ;D
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Ithekro on April 13, 2007, 12:48:48 PM
Enterprising Jews conveting a round battleship into an aircraft carrier....wait, no, no, too short a strip...mobile airship carrier?  Still too short....
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Carthaginian on April 13, 2007, 02:28:45 PM
Quote from: Ithekro on April 13, 2007, 12:48:48 PM
Enterprising Jews conveting a round battleship into an aircraft carrier....wait, no, no, too short a strip...mobile airship carrier?  Still too short....

Auto-gyro carrier, perhaps? ;)
I know that WW has made use of AG's; I don't know if they'll show up here.
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Desertfox on April 13, 2007, 07:18:17 PM
What infrastructure will New Zion have? I know Abbysinia had considerable, around 2-3 HBPs.

This is what I have for the Caliphate and Ethiopia (old):

Caliphate

Capital: Cairo
Goverment: Caliphate
Economy: 7 HBP, 5 MBP
Manpower: 19 MP 76 million


Ethiopia

Capital: Addis Ababa
Goverment: Monarchy
Economy: 1 MBP
Population: 2 MP 8 million

substracting 2 HBPs and 30 million for Farijistan there's still 5 HBPs and 46 million people not accounted for.

I would say New Zion could get 2-3 BP, $48, and 24 million. Smaller than Farijistan but still big enough to  annoy and to form a potential player nation.
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: P3D on April 13, 2007, 07:23:44 PM
New Zion have 18 million pop, 9IC, 0.5BP, $19.8 revenue. Based on historical figures and being generous. I am ignoring Dougwise's figures for a PC nation, as he did effectively nothing. The same applies for Nigeria - which is an even more backward colony/third world power.

Egypt is around 3BP, 25-30 million and a revenue around $50.

Firanj is somewhat less powerful.
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Earl822 on April 14, 2007, 03:03:06 AM
P3D

Those figures make New Zion unplayable, which should not be the aim here, in fact with those figures, NZ couldn't even afford an army/Navy big enough to hold Egypt, or any other nation off.

Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: P3D on April 14, 2007, 04:21:24 AM
New Zion is not supposed to be a player country. There's enough of them available. It is protected by Egypt against the Italians, and by Italy against the French. $20 is enough to maintain 5 corps, which, on the defensive, is enough to discourage any would-be attackers. Neither Italy nor DKB has sufficient harbor infrastructure to attack by more than a handful of corps. Egypt could not attack without full mobilization - which might just be an invitation to Italy to try to expand the Libyan border to the East.

And wars are pretty expensive.
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Desertfox on April 14, 2007, 10:56:33 PM
But thats barely enough to survive. 0.5 BP is not enought for even a decent torpedo boat force. And if all NPCs are so weak we will be able to practicly walk over them. If Firajistan has less than Egypt (say 2 BP, 20 million, $40) Ill be able to walk over it. It wont be able to afford any super cruisers or other annoying weapons. If New Zion cant build anything, Swampy wont have a need for Lake ships, or pre-emptive strikes. How are we going to have fun then? NPCs should at least be strong enough to annoy.
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: P3D on April 14, 2007, 11:07:32 PM
Firanjistan: you are welcome to try. There might be nations who won't like it. I can count at least two, nevermind a few who would help them just because NS attacked Firanj.

There are small NPCs, so what? If Swampy do not need lake ships, he won't build them. I will not litter the globe with $40-income nations just because you want them.
Title: Re: New Zion Battlecruiser?
Post by: Desertfox on April 15, 2007, 08:39:29 AM
Historicly there where a lot of medium powers. The ABC ones all had dreadnoughts in their fleets. However here are rules are so strict that the only way they would get Dreadnoughts would be building them themselves. Littering the globe with $40 nations is not going to change the balance of power one bit but will make the world a more lively place. Look at the economic report. Only Iberia (8 BP, $94) and Japan (7 BP, $96) have less that 10 BP and $100. Giving NPCs 1-3 BPs, and $30-50, is not going to affect anyone, while making everything more interesting.