Why don't you want to build a battleship that can stand to the Victoria if we're going for surface ship?
Well, the Victoria is not what's killing our carriers. It is too slow to catch them. Their destroyers and Buccaneers are what's killing our carriers, and a cruiser might be somewhat useful against them.
Folks voting for the Saltseeker: I am all in favour of developing missiles, but you should realise that the Saltseeker will
not be immediately useful. Consider the X-4/X-7; the pinnacle of Nazi missile technology, developed at the very end of the war, with all their experience with V2s and whatnot- and the end product was shit. The french tested the X-7 after the war, and found it to be wildly inaccurate. Even the Malkara, developed in the fifties as a descendant of the X-7, was shit. Actually useful guided missiles will require
at least two designs. Which may be worth it! But just know what you're voting for.
Regarding the Sea Haul: Ah, no, I sincerely doubt it. 5 TC = modern cargo ship. We do not have the technology.
Regarding a cruiser: I'm not saying we
never develop a cruiser. I am saying it won't do us any good this turn. It won't knock them down to a minor NA. They're simply too far ahead.
I think we should use our revision on the Overcompensator. It was quite effective this turn at keeping their navy occupied, with better targeting and some other minor fixes, it should manage to keep their cheaper navy at bay as well.
I
would vote for the Maximum Effect, but for a few changes. First, it should specify the ability to carry medium vehicles, like the Salamander. If it can't do that, it won't be much use. Second, I think we should probably build it (primarily) out of wood, to cut costs. Third, jet engines weren't used on cargo planes until several decades after the war (and there are still cargo planes in use today that don't use them), for good reason. Jets are good for speed (and height), not long hauls. Propellers are just more fuel efficient.