|
Post by asdfzxc922 on Nov 1, 2018 3:21:54 GMT -6
Got a demand for four new cruisers while already struggling to stay in the black thanks to post-war budget cuts. This was my attempt at making something actually useful within my meager budget:
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Nov 1, 2018 7:02:19 GMT -6
Got a demand for four new cruisers while already struggling to stay in the black thanks to post-war budget cuts. This was my attempt at making something actually useful within my meager budget: You got large cruiser. I usually built in that case only 2100 tons cruiser. Is this cruiser with long range? It could be good raider. But I would prefer smaller cruiser with less armor as at that stage of game 3" armor does not stop 6" guns.
|
|
|
Post by asdfzxc922 on Nov 1, 2018 13:37:20 GMT -6
I'm using skwabie's mod, so that's the absolute lower bound before it starts registering as an oversized DD. It's not reliable enough for raiding, but it's armored enough to usually survive 5" hits at torpedo launching range and fast enough to run away afterward so it makes a good BC-killer (which was my main intention). I did experiment with a budget raider along the same lines, but the result was a much more conventional-looking 6x5" gun cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 1, 2018 18:38:48 GMT -6
If you don't mind, why did you go for 2x2x6" AB rather than 2x3x5" AB? I feel like six 5" guns would be better than four 6" guns for suppressing a capital ship's secondary battery while closing for a torpedo run and for engaging destroyers, and probably about as good against cruisers despite the 6" gun's superior armor penetration and range.
|
|
|
Post by asdfzxc922 on Nov 2, 2018 3:43:10 GMT -6
The "under fire" penalty is, as far as I can tell, completely unaffected by the ROF or size of the enemy's guns (above a certain very generous lower bound), so if that's all you care about then a small number of 6" or even 7" guns is optimal.
|
|
|
Post by sillygoy on Nov 5, 2018 8:32:01 GMT -6
Strange but not that strange. It was 1908 and although I had researched triple turrets, I still couldn't get more than two down the centerline, but Germany needed battlecruisers fast, and so the Von der Tann class was born.
The service record of this two-ship class was very mediocre. The main gun turrets kept on jamming during battle so most of the actual gunnery was done by the secondary 8 inchers. Both ships fought against France, the UK, Russia and then France again. I'd say that the class was a good stopgap before I could get true battlecruisers out the dockyards, but due to sentimental reasons I didn't scrap them till the 1930's.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 4, 2018 15:30:59 GMT -6
I realize that these don't look particularly strange, though Kamapua'a has abnormally-heavy armor for a ship laid down in 1905. What makes them strange is their range - specifically, both have "short" range. Mind you, I'm playing as the Kingdom of Hawaii - also known as a group of islands about 6,000 miles from anywhere. Short-range ships for operations in the middle of the Pacific? ... Okay, sounds good to me!
... I hope the Royal Hawaiian Navy has a lot of fleet colliers and has practiced coaling and resupplying its ships in open water...
Kamapua'a is also a little unusual for a couple of other reasons. Firstly, it was built overseas (in the United States, specifically, though that does not really matter), which I don't normally do except with legacy ships when playing a nation that cannot build a decent battleship domestically at the start of the game. Secondly, while it commissioned in early 1908, its sistership, Hi'iaka, is due to commission in 1910, having been laid down nearly two years after Kamapua'a; usually, I would've instead laid down a new class with that much time between ships. Thirdly, it's my first battleship of any description in this game ... unless you count Maui, which is armed and armored about as well as some of the battleships contemporary with it (1904) but is really more of a large first class cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Dec 7, 2018 7:33:35 GMT -6
I'd like to present a design drafted up but never put into production. At first glance it might seem rather conventional, a 1912 BC with a reasonable armament and speed although a rather oddly thick extended belt. So what's the big deal? Well, in order to save somewhere around 2,500 tons of weight, this is a 35,000t protected cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Dec 7, 2018 10:04:15 GMT -6
...Huh. I'm guessing that as soon as the 'Fleet in Being' idea failed it would have a rude time, but if all it did was chase down cruisers and avoid everything else it could have a life. Unfortunately that ship would be an investment of significant time and coin that couldn't reasonably carry its own weight in an action among equals. But I agree, it is - technically - "strange".
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Dec 7, 2018 14:55:18 GMT -6
Protected BCs are something I have likewise considered but never put into production.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Mar 17, 2019 9:18:50 GMT -6
In the midst of a war with France as Italy, I was deciding what aspect of the navy I should improve. Perhaps the destroyer force, I had just unlocked 1100t variants. Or maybe a new class of light cruisers? Of course, I could put the funds into capital ships and hope the war dragged on long enough for them to make a difference. Or, I could do something incredibly stupid.
Now, I was not blind to the absurdity of this design. After all, I had effectively no idea how well mass minelaying worked. Would I be greeted by event screen after screen of French cruisers and capital ships being blown out of the water, or only an occasional DD destruction. I thus knew I had go about building these wisely.
So I ordered 10.
For the next four months the Italian Naval Treasury operated at a 50 million deficit. By the time construction was completed we had accrued a 150 million debt. Curiosly, despite multiple warnings by the game that the Finance Ministry was going to be upset by my spending habits, I received absolutely no pushback from them. In fact, I actually started gaining Prestige. Perhaps they assumed that any man insane enough to blow an entire year's naval budget on converted liners was no man to be trifled with. No doubt terrified that the Italians intended to not only defeat France but then corner the cruise ship market by offering "Sail by and Laugh at Austria's Lack Of Colonies" tours, The Austro-Hungarians entered into the war.
This seems as good a time as any to mention that yes, alcohol did play a part in this. In any case, I was now laying roughly 5,000 mines per strategic turn and hoped that I would soon see the benefits emerge.
In nearly a full year, three opposing ships were sunk by mines. I cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, say this was a good result. Oh, also the Prime Minister is dead.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 17, 2019 13:45:39 GMT -6
Well, there went Italy's modern bulk carrier fleet...
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Mar 17, 2019 21:20:34 GMT -6
noshurviverse I think that is funny that the Austrians took AMCs that they were going to have to scrap. They looked at those expensive ships and said that they had to have them.
|
|
|
Post by kidcharlemagne on Mar 17, 2019 23:13:00 GMT -6
This seems as good a time as any to mention that yes, alcohol did play a part in this. In any case, I was now laying roughly 5,000 mines per strategic turn and hoped that I would soon see the benefits emerge.
The image of this is absolutely horrifying, whenever the war ended maritime commerce would be absolutely impossible since the Mediterranean would have almost a million mines strewn across the place that would take years to remove
|
|