Protected Cruisers

[theexecuter]

My understanding of real life protected cruisers is that the armor scheme is based around deck and superstructure armor...and that Hull defence is handled by coal bunker placement.

Yet in game, you have to have belt armor in order for the ship to be a protected cruiser and you don't need deck armor at all...which seems completely backwards.

Is my understanding of real life protected cruiser armor design faulty?

[rimbecano]

When you select the "protected cruiser" armor scheme, "belt" represents the slanted part of the armor deck, and "deck" represents the crown of the deck. 0" "deck" armor corresponds to that middle crown section of the deck not being there, and is hideously vulnerable to machinery damage from splinters.

[fredsanford]

See here for a schematic of a Protected Cruiser.  In the game, the "belt" thickness you specify corresponds to the portion of the sloped deck armor that curves down to the waterline.  The "deck" corresponds to the horizontal portion in the middle, and could be skimpy-to-nonexistent in some designs.

[boomboomf22]

exactly, strictly speaking the physical deck, superstructure and most of the hull of most PCs is unarmored, which is why the light cruisers tech is so important in light ships as it allows for much more durable ships

[theexecuter]

Ah ha.

Thanks for clarifying what the belt and deck game functions correspond to that diagram.