Battlecruisers should be counted towards the 7 battleships you need to keep

[Silamon]

This campaign as Japan I was building mainly battlecruisers. Heavy battlecruisers with decent speed and firepower and manageable armor.
Trouble is... since they don't count as battleships, I had to keep predreadnoughts until as late as 1925 because the politicians were getting mad I did not have enough battleships.

My battlecruisers could effectively fill the role of battleships.. 10 inch belt armor and 3 inch deck in 1915 is solid armor for either battlecruiser or battleship... IMO it's dumb that I had to keep predreadnoughts around for so long because of that, finally started getting rid of them when my battlecruisers went in for a refit and were no longer fast enough to count as BC.

Now in the 30s I am still stuck with some old 18k ton battleships that were the first generation dreadnoughts I built, again because the politicians don't want to have less than 7 battleSHIPS.

I want to know why the politicians are so desperate to keep ships like this:
http://prntscr.com/owJtjngZkPS9
when I have a whole fleet of ships like this one or better:
http://prntscr.com/J1djMKCQL4my

http://prntscr.com/z9PW_2hE9x3P

[Hydra]

Yea good point that really should be changed, no reason Pre Dreads should count and BC's not.

[ulzgoroth]

The politicians ask for what they feel like. If they want light cruisers, heavy won't do. If they want destroyers, light cruisers are not a substitute.

[Silamon]

Originally posted by ulzgoroth:

The politicians ask for what they feel like. If they want light cruisers, heavy won't do. If they want destroyers, light cruisers are not a substitute.

This is for the mandatory battleship minimum, not the event requesting new ships. My battlecruisers effectively are battleships, just a bit faster.

Do you not think it's dumb that they would rather have that relic from 1907 than more battlecruisers like the one from 1923?

These must be the same guys that thought the 50 year old A10 was perfect and that spending money on better planes was a waste of money....

[game1home]

Probably not a good comparison, the A10 was a very good platform and you will notice the B52 is still in service. New and expensive does not always translate to better. Your B to BC comparison is an excellent point.

[Silamon]

Originally posted by game1home:

Probably not a good comparison, the A10 was a very good platform and you will notice the B52 is still in service. New and expensive does not always translate to better. Your B to BC comparison is an excellent point.

The A10 has not been useful for its intended role in a very long time. The auto cannon the plane is literally built around is not effective against modern armor, and it is notorious for friendly fire incidents. It is extremely vulnerable to anti aircraft weapons thanks to its low speed.

The b52 flies high enough to avoid the things the A10 has to deal with, and it can still drop the same bomb load it used to... No point in fixing something that isn't broken... But the A10 is in fact broken.

The same people who argued to keep the A10 thought the m113 was god's gift to APCs and the Bradley was a dangerous waste of money. If you ever want a good laugh go watch Pentagon Wars, that's some hilarious propaganda that is complete ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

[game1home]

Friendly fire is not a plane issue, and the A10 very well could serve in the type of conflicts the US has been involved in. Russia has lost 70 or more Jets to Ukrainian Anti-Air of different types. Shrug, newer does not always mean better, it is a moot point anyway, the decision is already made.

[Silamon]

Originally posted by game1home:

Friendly fire is not a plane issue, and the A10 very well could serve in the type of conflicts the US has been involved in. Russia has lost 70 or more Jets to Ukrainian Anti-Air of different types. Shrug, newer does not always mean better, it is a moot point anyway, the decision is already made.

No, it's not a problem with the plane, it's a problem with the gun and detection equipment (or lack thereof).

If A10s were active in Ukraine right now, they would be taking ruinous losses. Ever wonder why they never get deployed against opposing forces that actually have good anti aircraft equipment?

Edit: but yeah. It's not the point of the thread anyway. Shouldn't have brought it up. I was simply making a joke...

[ulzgoroth]

Originally posted by Silamon:

Originally posted by ulzgoroth:

The politicians ask for what they feel like. If they want light cruisers, heavy won't do. If they want destroyers, light cruisers are not a substitute.

This is for the mandatory battleship minimum, not the event requesting new ships. My battlecruisers effectively are battleships, just a bit faster.

Do you not think it's dumb that they would rather have that relic from 1907 than more battlecruisers like the one from 1923?

What stopped you from designating your next class of battlecruisers as battleships? Were they too fast to be allowed that status?

[Silamon]

Originally posted by ulzgoroth:

Originally posted by Silamon:

This is for the mandatory battleship minimum, not the event requesting new ships. My battlecruisers effectively are battleships, just a bit faster.

Do you not think it's dumb that they would rather have that relic from 1907 than more battlecruisers like the one from 1923?

What stopped you from designating your next class of battlecruisers as battleships? Were they too fast to be allowed that status?

It would not allow me to class them as battleships, and I wanted to maintain a higher speed for the fleet. And yes, 28 knots was too fast to count as a battleship. The first ship it let me have 28 knots and count as a battleship was laid down in 1935. I finally scrapped that relic from 1907 in 1937 heh. I guess having a BB in mothballs for 20 years past its shelf life made the politicians happy somehow.

[game1home]

No harm no foul, I have a tendency to go south and take the bait when offered. :D

[Lord Hausgold]

Because politicians will be politicians. They honestly could not care less what the capability of the ship is. As long as on paper it is labelled battlecruiser then it will be the a battlecruiser on the books. I mean we have "destroyers" today that would honestly fit light cruisers status, but because it sounds cheaper to the taxpayer they go with "destroyer" classification. Think of it this way; when everyone else around you have ships classed as "Battleship". But you would be the only one without one as you only have "battlecruisers". Which would imply that they are used to hunt cruisers, or are cheap and weaker version of a regular battleship. After all in this game it is about the prestige that a navy generates that keeps you in office.

[Silamon]

Originally posted by Lord Hausgold:

Because politicians will be politicians. They honestly could not care less what the capability of the ship is. As long as on paper it is labelled battlecruiser then it will be the a battlecruiser on the books. I mean we have "destroyers" today that would honestly fit light cruisers status, but because it sounds cheaper to the taxpayer they go with "destroyer" classification. Think of it this way; when everyone else around you have ships classed as "Battleship". But you would be the only one without one as you only have "battlecruisers". Which would imply that they are used to hunt cruisers, or are cheap and weaker version of a regular battleship. After all in this game it is about the prestige that a navy generates that keeps you in office.

So if I strap an M60 onto a fishing boat and call it a battleship, will that make them happy? Because I think that would be almost as effective as a predreadnought in 1930.

I think it is completely ridiculous that they look at a battleship that can do 28 knots instead of only 24 knots and say "yeeeaahhh but could you make a slower one? That would be a lot cooler I think"

[Lord Hausgold]

Originally posted by Silamon:

So if I strap an M60 onto a fishing boat and call it a battleship, will that make them happy? Because I think that would be almost as effective as a predreadnought in 1930.

I think it is completely ridiculous that they look at a battleship that can do 28 knots instead of only 24 knots and say "yeeeaahhh but could you make a slower one? That would be a lot cooler I think"

1. That is a strawman fallacy. Yeah, they are not gonna let a M60 strapped to a fishing boat be considered a battleship. A predreadnought is still a capital ship that has large calibre guns and can still fight a cruiser and still most likely win.
2. The concept of a "Fast Battleship" did not yet exist in the 1930s and this game knows that the players are gonna have hindsight 20/20 where we already know what works and does not. So to limit the player they use the definitions of that era. In this case the average speed of a 1930s battleship hangs around 21-25 knots. But once it hits the 1940s
3. Lastly yes, I think politicians would think a predreadnought to be "good enough". Why build these new finagled fast battleships that can go 28 knots when we can stick with the more reliable; and more importantly cheaper designs. The government is not just the navy unless you are somehow a thalassocracy leaded by the admiralty. You are but the admiral and they want to do other things with their limited budget.

[Silamon]

Originally posted by Lord Hausgold:

Originally posted by Silamon:

So if I strap an M60 onto a fishing boat and call it a battleship, will that make them happy? Because I think that would be almost as effective as a predreadnought in 1930.

I think it is completely ridiculous that they look at a battleship that can do 28 knots instead of only 24 knots and say "yeeeaahhh but could you make a slower one? That would be a lot cooler I think"

1. That is a strawman fallacy. Yeah, they are not gonna let a M60 strapped to a fishing boat be considered a battleship. A predreadnought is still a capital ship that has large calibre guns and can still fight a cruiser and still most likely win.
2. The concept of a "Fast Battleship" did not yet exist in the 1930s and this game knows that the players are gonna have hindsight 20/20 where we already know what works and does not. So to limit the player they use the definitions of that era. In this case the average speed of a 1930s battleship hangs around 21-25 knots. But once it hits the 1940s
3. Lastly yes, I think politicians would think a predreadnought to be "good enough". Why build these new finagled fast battleships that can go 28 knots when we can stick with the more reliable; and more importantly cheaper designs.

The ship has great armor for a battleship. The ship has great guns for a battleship. The ship is a few knots faster than a battleship.

It is superior to almost every battleship enemy nations are fielding, in every aspect.

It is dumb that it does not count for the restriction.

A predreadnought is literally less useful than an armed fishing boat. The fishing boat could be used to patrol a river. The predreadnought is only useful for target practice.

This is the 1930s, not 1890, not 1900, not "a short while after we invented dreadnoughts so we are not ready to throw out the old stuff yet" this is full on super dreadnoughts that need to contend with other superdreadnoughts.

Imagine if Japan had decided to keep the Mikasa in active service for world war 2 because the ships like the Kongo were considered to be battlecruisers. How dumb does that sound?

[Lord Hausgold]

Sorry about the consent edit there. I was figuring out how to use the formatting; anyways back to the discussion.

Again, the problem is you have hindsight so you can create what can be amounted to a fast battleship before they existed in real life. Battleships that are going 25+ knots yet to exist within the era you are currently playing. Ships that are going that fast with that much armour and guns as your battleship was HMS Hood. Albeit it had smaller gun calibre and less guns with 4x2 15 inches. And the thing was classed as a Battlecruiser for some reason.