|
Post by oaktree on Dec 7, 2017 21:34:17 GMT -6
A very interesting discussion. The first generation (or two) of BCs and BBs are often interesting due the necessity of accepting a design that will go obsolete rapidly or face immediate superior enemy designs. A lot depends on the desired mission for the ship. And the technology is still rapidly changing to make larger and better quality guns and ships soon available.
At the same time trying to wait for some better tech before building risks getting caught in war with a insufficient fleet or mainly obsolete legacy ships.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 8, 2017 4:53:59 GMT -6
aeson, garrisonchisholm I guess I didn't get the memo on the new chair-code. Perhaps that was my mistake then, haha. oaktree, I think you are right, the 1906-1910 time frame is perhaps the most interesting in the game and no matter what you do you are building ships that are almost obsolete before they are commissioned. Because I've waited, if I got into a war right now with Germany or Great Britain I would be screwed. 4-5 game years from now though the situation might be reversed.
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on Dec 8, 2017 8:09:57 GMT -6
aeson , garrisonchisholm I guess I didn't get the memo on the new chair-code. Perhaps that was my mistake then, haha. oaktree , I think you are right, the 1906-1910 time frame is perhaps the most interesting in the game and no matter what you do you are building ships that are almost obsolete before they are commissioned. Because I've waited, if I got into a war right now with Germany or Great Britain I would be screwed. 4-5 game years from now though the situation might be reversed. I often try to muddle through this period with a stopgap ship, usually a BC, and my pre-dreads and light forces. And then hopefully get the tech assembled for a cap ship that will be useful until the 1920s, or the start of a string of related designs that will morph into an end-game ship. Though I have often found that stopgap BC hanging around when playing as a lesser power - it ends up protecting colonies from raiders or helping with invasions somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Dec 8, 2017 9:23:35 GMT -6
aeson bcoopactual Well, ...what was i supposed do? Ikea hadn't been invented yet, and the German ambassador had such a fine tray of schnitzel and cheese... *sighs rhapsodically*
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 8, 2017 9:31:37 GMT -6
I often try to muddle through this period with a stopgap ship, usually a BC, and my pre-dreads and light forces. And then hopefully get the tech assembled for a cap ship that will be useful until the 1920s, or the start of a string of related designs that will morph into an end-game ship. Though I have often found that stopgap BC hanging around when playing as a lesser power - it ends up protecting colonies from raiders or helping with invasions somewhere. I think this entire thread was about me being convinced to do something similar although the Lexington's would probably be considered more than a stopgap. I fully intend to try to use them through the end of the game although if they are badly outclassed by the end then I will scrap them rather than provide easy victory points for late game opponents. Most games I would have just muddled through with a standard design that used the craptacular 12 inch (-1) and moved on but since in this game I unexpectedly developed a pretty good 11 inch (+1) gun I thought I would get advice from other players. I would have never gone the route of the Lex's and no battleships on my own but I think it was good call and I appreciate everyone who contributed. Hey garrisonchisholm , I think you can cue up the Imperial March now... Edit - Those were the two largest "thumbnail" pictures I've ever seen. I'll break them up into two's.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 8, 2017 10:17:58 GMT -6
Here's my next battlecruiser to follow the Lexington's
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on Dec 8, 2017 12:15:57 GMT -6
Here's my next battlecruiser to follow the Lexington's That's a decent BC for the period. I presume you were still limited to 3-centerline turrets at the time. My stopgap BC from roughly that period. (Ignore the extra tonnage available - artifact from opening designer in 1950 of an 1910 design.) I went the 13" (-1) road and so-so armor and speed route. And I lost one of the two to a single torpedo hit in a skirmish with some Japanese light cruisers. Remember that mainly because the torpedo was fired by a US destroyer... My replacement BC from a few years later regressed to 12" guns since I had quality 0 there. I don't think I had +1 quality 11" available yet and preferred to have more barrels firing. Not long after these I jumped to quality 0 14" and had 27,000t BB (Wyoming-class) built that lasted until 1950 in secondary roles. I saw one of my 1920-era BBs get gutted by a single salvo of 16" shells during a massive Jutland-type clash with the IJN off Korea in the 1940s. The Japanese lost badly, but they took down some of my capital ships with them. (By that time I was using 12x15" BCs and 10x16" as Standard builds in the 35000-40000t range and even added a few 17" armed monster BC and BB to act as division flagships. The USA budget in the post-1925 period essentially gets ridiculous.)
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 8, 2017 14:27:21 GMT -6
That's a decent BC for the period. I presume you were still limited to 3-centerline turrets at the time. The Lexington-class battlecruisers have four centerline turrets, so he's not limited to three centerline turrets; the Ticonderoga's 3x2 main battery is probably a result of cost considerations (both financial and in the sense of what he'd need to sacrifice to get the extra turret, since I don't think he can add another 1400t turret and 300 tons of ammunition to his 26400t battlecruiser and keep it within his 28000t dock limit without making cuts somewhere else). Plus, a 6x14" broadside is approximately equal or superior to the broadsides of almost all the other capital ships he's shown us (only the new Indefatigable has a clearly-superior broadside, and then only on the highly-restrictive arc allowed for cross-deck fire), and the Ticonderoga also has a higher speed than any foreign battlecruiser he's shown us while maintaining armor comparable to contemporary battleships.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 8, 2017 16:34:57 GMT -6
This was my own BC designed around 1905. Of course, there was no extra weight when built, but it's 1950 in the game now. A little under-armored for my taste, but it was the best I could do. 13" was chosen because all my heavy guns were -1. Then I got superimposed B and 4 centerline, and decent 14" guns. All within a year of laying them down.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 8, 2017 17:37:46 GMT -6
That's a decent BC for the period. I presume you were still limited to 3-centerline turrets at the time. The Lexington-class battlecruisers have four centerline turrets, so he's not limited to three centerline turrets; the Ticonderoga's 3x2 main battery is probably a result of cost considerations (both financial and in the sense of what he'd need to sacrifice to get the extra turret, since I don't think he can add another 1400t turret and 300 tons of ammunition to his 26400t battlecruiser and keep it within his 28000t dock limit without making cuts somewhere else). Plus, a 6x14" broadside is approximately equal or superior to the broadsides of almost all the other capital ships he's shown us (only the new Indefatigable has a clearly-superior broadside, and then only on the highly-restrictive arc allowed for cross-deck fire), and the Ticonderoga also has a higher speed than any foreign battlecruiser he's shown us while maintaining armor comparable to contemporary battleships. oaktree , aeson 's right, I have access to 4 centerline (but not 5+) I just couldn't keep the 4th turret and the Pennsylvania's armor (which the Tico's essentially have) and the 27 knot speed without making the ship 32,000 tons. I can't build ships that big, nobody in the game can right now, and it would have cost another $21 million per ship. So I could kill the armor like a British design (Jutland says no. They can claim it was poor cordite handling and storage practices and that was true but those ships were just plain under-armored as Hood proved.) or I could use a 12 inch or 13 in gun which are both -1 quality. Neither of those guns was palatable, this entire thread ended up being about avoiding using them. If I had had -1 14 inch guns, I probably still would have ended up using them though. Eventually you just have to work with what you got and no way could I wait for 15 inch guns or wait longer to randomly improve one of my (-1) guns. But heck, even with 12 or 13 inch (0) quality guns I would still rather use fewer 14 inch (0) guns. I call it the aeson school of hit 'em with the biggest hammer possible. He did the math on another thread and you get a half-dozen or so more hits with 8 guns vice 6 guns but each of the heavier shells is more likely to penetrate armor and will do more damage because of the larger bursting charge. Volume of fire is probably a viable strategy for cruisers where they aren't truly armored against 8 or 6 inch guns but against armored targets like battleships he argued, and I've bought in, that quality of hits are better than quantity of hits.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Dec 8, 2017 17:52:41 GMT -6
Those 3" turret tops make me nervous. I'd go with 5" or so.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 8, 2017 18:00:36 GMT -6
Those 3" turret tops make me nervous. I'd go with 5" or so. In 1905? Nothing can even come close to penetrating them for at least 8 years. I'll usually go up to 6"-7" when 16" guns start coming around, but for now even the best guns can't penetrate 2" deck.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 8, 2017 18:12:12 GMT -6
Those 3" turret tops make me nervous. I'd go with 5" or so. Hey fredsanford . If you were referring to my ships then I would say that currently they are pretty well protected. Later on when I see my own guns' armor penetration get to 2.5 inches of deck or when a bunch of ships are running around with 15 and 16 inch guns, I'll probably take one or two secondary gun pairs off and use that weight to improve the turret armor including the tops. Right now my 14 inch (0) guns have a max vertical penetration of 1.8 inches @15,000 yards and a max range of 18,240 yds. garrisonchisholm 's people are still hard at work. Operation Chaise Longue has delivered a copy of the most recent French battlecruiser under construction. The AI sure is a hard learner when it comes to armor on a battlecruiser.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Dec 9, 2017 0:26:35 GMT -6
...a whole host of covert ops named after living room and office furniture... *shivers*
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 16, 2017 17:57:09 GMT -6
I would say Christmas came early but it will actually be December when Lexington is finished with its workup. I've done pretty well so far in the fight against the Soviets. Fought three major battles in the Baltic in the last seven months or so. I think those who questioned or poo-pooed the hitting power of the 11 inch shell have been vindicated. The Memphis BC's and Mississippi B's have 11 inch (0) guns and they hit plenty but taking down an enemy battleship is definitely a war of attrition rather than a number of decisive blows that you might get from a heavier shell. We'll see if the Lexington's 11 inch (+1) guns' superior armor penetration give them any more success if the war is still going on. The Soviet Government is showing the first signs of cracking. The big brothers are still a couple of years away.
|
|