As a side note to fuel whatever ATL one desires with a "Treaty." And hopefully without using too much contrivium, for an alternate Treaty post-White Peace War, I made it part of the peace treaty, likely at British insistence. Stealing from the non-technical end product of diplomats and not fully thinking it through Admirals, I used the 10,000-ton/8-inch gun cruiser paradigm to impose a 35,000-ton/16-inch gun "limitation" upon all fleets. Here the tonnage is an average per ship, limits being set at an ideal number of ships times this tonnage, setting a tonnage limit in total rather than per ship. It let me keep all the various fleets on the same page despite varied ship sizing, varied numbers and strutting for size or numbers or both. Then I imposed a sort of ratio to balance fleets. Starting with the RN versus KM 8 to 5 (i.e. 60%), I worked backwards through the likely parity or handicaps, settling for me, at the bottom is OE with 2 capital ships or 70,000-tons, A-H and Italy each 4 ships or 140,000-tons, France with 6 ships or 210,000-tons, Germany at 12 ships or 420,000-tons and the RN at 19 ships or 675,000-tons, Russia is not considered as it has no central government and the USA was not a belligerent and no one even thought Japan deserved to be discussed. So if you look carefully each Navy can build more smaller or less up to the limit of tonnage but bigger than 35,000-tons! That let me camel nose in the darlings, G3, Admiral, Mackensen, L20, etc. at the expense of lesser ships.
Handwavium applied, that got me a core of 3 to 5 Battleships for A-H, depending upon final tonnage. My guess is that Austrian ships tend smaller, more akin to the later Panzerschiff, a 25,000 to 30,000-ton design, emphasize on underwater protection and anti-air defense, some consideration for secondary, likely an early DP, and whatever main battery is left, likely the 14-inch unless we get real cooperation with Germany and then maybe a 15-inch (2 x 2 or at most 3 x2 layout). The trick will be balancing speed and protection, my guess is that speed gets emphasis but likely an earlier adoption of top deck armor to defend versus aircraft. I think they might build a few heavy cruisers, but more emphasis on larger destroyers that must include anti-air to their mix, qualitative versus quantitative being the guide. Maybe some light cruisers but maybe not. My thinking is that the heavy cruisers are both good distant raiding/flag showing vessels as well as being aimed at breaking through an Italian barrage leading the big hulls. These should be a rare case of trying to immunize a cruiser versus underwater threats. After that mine warfare, littoral and submarines get more love in the A-H navy than others and potentially A-H leads on land-based naval air (the RIKKO approach), and including fighters to cover ships in the Adriatic. I would not predict any aircraft carriers or even seaplane tenders.
A compact navy that mostly is a "fleet-in-being", leveraging air power sooner and having incentives to develop earlier many of the key areas necessary later, such as DP gunnery and AAA aboard ship.
