Sorry to come a bit late to this subject, which fascinated me for years. IMO, no historical WWII navy has it more challenging, yet there is a real chance for success, I believe - and by success, I mean helping Germany win the war, not merely naval battles. I think it's vital for Germany to maintain a respectable surface fleet, to tie up a more powerful navy's forces in.
Objectives: It is almost certain in 1933 that any conflict involving Germany will pit it against a colonial power - France or England. So, from the get go, I know I have no hope of matching any of these before 1945. Yet, they have sealanes to protect: The concept of being faster than what you can't fight and stronger than what you can't outrun makes lots of sense, especially since these colonial powers bound themselves to a treaty that left a huge gap between 10 and 35 k-tons.
So a commerce war fleet is the goal, in a first phase, then, depending on how things go, we beef up that to a high-sea fleet from, say, 1940 on. But from the AGNT to the end of the WT treaty, speed, long-range, thick armor but more modest armement is the key. On the other hand, Germany also need a local Baltic fleet - but already, with 3 Panzerschiffen, 5 light cruisers and three pre-dreads, they have no real opposition there.
First, I would cancel Nurnberg, and favor building 2 Tromp-like scout cruisers instead. The other four "Ks" would sea their armement reduced to twin turrets aft to improve seakeeping and stability. Steady, gradual preogression is the key. and to that purpose I would take orders from Baltic states to build ships for them (instead of ill-suited Italian ones) during the 1933-35 years before the AGNT, to keep the industry vigorous.
As an air-superiority obsessed country, I would insist for a better development of AA facilities, and in this way I would drop development of the 105mm AA for its 88mm version, and would hasten the development of the 128mm dual. I would also develop a lower-velocity, heavy shelled 16" instead of the high-vel 15" that was made, in accordance with my long-range engagement politics.
So, here what I would lay down:
3x 22 500t Panzerschiff, as the Scharnhorsts were supposed to be, enlarged Deutschlands. Same guns, two turrets with the improved shells, to be able to run 32knts, or 12000 nmi @ 15knts, packing a 240mm belt and a four-inch average deck.
2x 24 000t Carriers, somewhat archaic à la Euro of the era, meaning an enclosed hangar, an armored deck and maybe even a couple of 6-8" turrets. An AC of 50-60 crafts would be enough at the start, but a 33knts speed and solid TDS is required, as well as valid legs. These carriers fill the AGNT carrier allocation.
2x 35 000t Battlecruisers, mounting two triple 16" guns, having a 31knts speed, a 240mm belt and a 160mm average deck, as well as a long range. these ships would be dangerous. long-range gun platforms. With these, the neo-PZs and a pair of pre-dreads, I would have used all of my AGNT battleship allocation.
6x 7 500t Light cruisers, armed with ten 128mm dual, a 105mm belt, 60mm average deck and able to do 33knts, 12000nmi @ 15 to be able to escort high sea units. These would complete, with the "Ks" and the earlier PZs, my AGNT cruiser allocation. No heavy Cruisers in the first phase - I still don't see their use in either a commerce war fleet or a coastal one. I would prefer Coastal battleships instead.
As for small units, I would priviliedge sea-going, big destroyers more bent on fleet synergy than DD superiority - we've got light cruisers for that. I would also build a line of 1000t, 30knts coastal destroyers, but no torpedo boats pass the "rabs", to built more MTBs intead.
Other small crafts and subs; as historical.
"That was all I had to say"