|
|
Post by generalvikus on Nov 30, 2017 20:01:51 GMT -6
I've just begun my first UK game and was initially very surprised by the sheer amount of tonnage required for foreign stations. So far, I've always found medium - heavy (4,500 t - 7,000 t) protected cruisers to be ideal, because they seem to absolutely wipe the floor with the light designs used by the AI and rack up a massive number of victory points in doing so. However, the vast requirement for foreign tonnage in the case of the UK makes me wonder whether I ought to make an exception.
My question for the community is: do you use colonial service cruisers as the UK, or for that matter as other countries? If so, what are their characteristics? Can they realistically be made to outrun all heavier cruisers? What is their role and utility in combat?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 30, 2017 20:23:10 GMT -6
I've just begun my first UK game and was initially very surprised by the sheer amount of tonnage required for foreign stations. So far, I've always found medium - heavy (4,500 t - 7,000 t) protected cruisers to be ideal, because they seem to absolutely wipe the floor with the light designs used by the AI and rack up a massive number of victory points in doing so. However, the vast requirement for foreign tonnage in the case of the UK makes me wonder whether I ought to make an exception. My question for the community is: do you use colonial service cruisers as the UK, or for that matter as other countries? If so, what are their characteristics? Can they realistically be made to outrun all heavier cruisers? What is their role and utility in combat? The cruisers built for overseas duty, like the Kent Class British cruisers, generally had a much greater radius of action at their economic speed. They had much better living conditions and had better sea keeping abilities. They had spacious deckswhich meant they were built for living in and fighting in. They had high freeboards to provide that extra internal space but that also gave them excessive roll rates. All these attributes don't come without price. Generally they would have less armor to compensate for the added fuel and living space plus stores. |
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Nov 30, 2017 20:29:45 GMT -6
The cruisers built for overseas duty, like the Kent Class British cruisers, generally had a much greater radius of action at their economic speed. They had much better living conditions and had better sea keeping abilities. They had spacious deckswhich meant they were built for living in and fighting in. They had high freeboards to provide that extra internal space but that also gave them excessive roll rates. All these attributes don't come without price. Generally they would have less armor to compensate for the added fuel and living space plus stores. Presumably, most of these attributes are abstracted in - game with the 'colonial service' checkbox. I always assumed that the only plausible use of a colonial service cruiser would be to make it much smaller and cheaper, with a decrease in fighting power as a result. I never considered that it would be worth constructing a colonial service cruiser as large and expensive as the main line ones; I still can't see the use of it. Regarding the radius of action - I've designed all of my British ships with medium range, working on the assumption that the global network of naval bases can substitute for long range. Should I modify this design principle? |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 30, 2017 20:36:41 GMT -6
The cruisers built for overseas duty, like the Kent Class British cruisers, generally had a much greater radius of action at their economic speed. They had much better living conditions and had better sea keeping abilities. They had spacious deckswhich meant they were built for living in and fighting in. They had high freeboards to provide that extra internal space but that also gave them excessive roll rates. All these attributes don't come without price. Generally they would have less armor to compensate for the added fuel and living space plus stores. Presumably, most of these attributes are abstracted in - game with the 'colonial service' checkbox. I always assumed that the only plausible use of a colonial service cruiser would be to make it much smaller and cheaper, with a decrease in fighting power as a result. I never considered that it would be worth constructing a colonial service cruiser as large and expensive as the main line ones; I still can't see the use of it. Regarding the radius of action - I've designed all of my British ships with medium range, working on the assumption that the global network of naval bases can substitute for long range. Should I modify this design principle? I believe that it depends on who you are playing. The Italians, Austro-Hungarians really don't need long range, but the British, and US probably do. The Japanese might, but not the Russians. It depends on geography. |
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Nov 30, 2017 20:43:51 GMT -6
I believe that it depends on who you are playing. The Italians, Austro-Hungarians really don't need long range, but the British, and US probably do. The Japanese might, but not the Russians. It depends on geography. I've only ever seen it used for ships intended as raiders, or to fulfil a dual purpose as raiders / main line combat ships. I assumed the purpose was that they could operate for longer periods in regions where there was inadequate or no naval base infrastructure. As for the British, I assumed that their infrastructure would allow ships to refuel almost anywhere in the world, eliminating the need for long-ranged ships. What benefit would it confer for them? |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 30, 2017 21:07:19 GMT -6
I believe that it depends on who you are playing. The Italians, Austro-Hungarians really don't need long range, but the British, and US probably do. The Japanese might, but not the Russians. It depends on geography. I've only ever seen it used for ships intended as raiders, or to fulfil a dual purpose as raiders / main line combat ships. I assumed the purpose was that they could operate for longer periods in regions where there was inadequate or no naval base infrastructure. As for the British, I assumed that their infrastructure would allow ships to refuel almost anywhere in the world, eliminating the need for long-ranged ships. What benefit would it confer for them? Colonial cruisers were built to protect trade routes and destroy raiders. Generally that means long periods at sea hunting these ships down. In war, you cannot always rely on a neutral nation to provide victuals and fuel, due to the war time conditions. For the British, in the Far East they had Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia not to mention Trincomalee and India along with the Cape area. But when you are chasing a raider, all bets are off. |
|
|
|
Post by ddg on Nov 30, 2017 22:27:32 GMT -6
In-game, long range has some utility for a trade protection cruiser as it increases the chance to intercept raiders.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 30, 2017 22:29:08 GMT -6
Colonial cruisers were given the name Trade Defense Cruisers. They sacrificed armor protection for endurance and habitability.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 30, 2017 23:04:41 GMT -6
I normally do not create purpose-built colonial cruisers and instead refit older fleet cruisers for colonial service once they've out-lived their usefulness to the battle fleet. That being said, I will sometimes create a colonial cruiser for the legacy fleet, and when I do my primary design goal is to fulfill foreign station requirements as efficiently as possible so as to leave as much of the budget available for the rest of the fleet as possible. As I tend to see multiples or near-multiples of 3000 and 4000 tons in the foreign station requirements, my colonial cruisers tend to end up at 2400 tons (counts as 3000 tons towards foreign station requirements with the colonial service tag; note that the design displacement must be at least 2500 tons if you want the ship to carry submerged torpedo tubes) or 3200 tons (counts as 4000 tons towards foreign station requirements), which also helps keep the unit cost down. I tend to cut armor, armament, and redundant fire control systems before speed on colonial cruisers because my feeling is that slow cruisers are more of a liability than weak cruisers, especially if for some reason I decide to move contemporary or newer fleet ships into the same sea zone as the colonial cruisers, though I am usually willing to cut a knot or two off the design speed for tonnage or cost reasons, and I usually leave the colonial ships at medium range like most of the other ships in the fleet, though I sometimes design them with long range to improve their ability to double as light surface raiders (they rarely see service in that role, however, since I tend to use my colonial cruisers to fulfill baseline foreign station requirements and don't build many extra colonial cruisers).
More rarely, I create a purpose-built colonial cruiser once my technology reaches a point where my modern fleet cruisers will no longer really become obsolete as the game progresses. If I do so, the colonial cruisers usually end up more or less as contemporary fleet cruisers with a turret removed or with 5" instead of 6" guns, with most of the tonnage thereby released going into reducing the design displacement. I tend to find this kind of ship too expensive for what it does, however, and usually just end up building additional modern fleet cruisers to replace whatever obsolescent cruisers might still linger on in colonial service.
I believe it is stated in the manual or maybe in the compilation of Fredrik's comments that longer ranges increase raider interception ability, so increasing the range might be beneficial. Regardless, I do not usually design my cruisers with long range unless I am explicitly designing a raider.
Also 'third-class cruisers.'
|
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 1, 2017 2:15:09 GMT -6
I believe that it depends on who you are playing. The Italians, Austro-Hungarians really don't need long range, but the British, and US probably do. The Japanese might, but not the Russians. It depends on geography. I've only ever seen it used for ships intended as raiders, or to fulfil a dual purpose as raiders / main line combat ships. I assumed the purpose was that they could operate for longer periods in regions where there was inadequate or no naval base infrastructure. As for the British, I assumed that their infrastructure would allow ships to refuel almost anywhere in the world, eliminating the need for long-ranged ships. What benefit would it confer for them? Most if not all of these were mentioned above but here is the quote from Fredrik from the tidbits file that was put together. *** "To clear this up: Ships with long range will: * Have better chances to escape interception as raiders. * Better chances of sinking merchants if raiders. * Better chance of intercepting raiders. * Less risk of being interned or scuttled from lack of fuel. * More fuel when a scenario starts (rarely of importance). Ships with reliable engines will have: * Less chance of engine problems in scenarios. * Less chance of needing to return to base area when at sea (getting a *). * Less risk of being interned or scuttled from engine problems." *** Regardless of the historical prevalence of refueling stations in the British Empire, you don't want short ranged ships in-game as the British because of the way map movement works. Short range ships can't move ocean areas in time of war unless they are going from one adjacent home area to another. |
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Dec 1, 2017 3:32:44 GMT -6
In the case of Britain (I rarely do this with other countries) I will build large colonial cruisers (CA size). You can fit CAs with the protected cruiser armour scheme to save money, as well as other cost-saving measures.
Something else I do, which is more motivated by historical accuracy than anything else, is build dedicated Colonial Battleships. Since 'Colonial Service' makes the ship count for more proportionally in tonnage, this is a really good way to fill out the colonial forces in high-maintenance areas (like the Med) and provides you with a modest battle force elsewhere if you need it. But, in general, I would go with 10,000t Colonial Armoured Cruisers as Britain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 7:10:57 GMT -6
Got a game going as GB at the moment. Single 16000t class CA. Both for fleet as well as colonial service. War with France, blockading him and steamrolls his CAs in cruiser battles, sank 2 in the Med, 1 in west africa.
Can't say I'll want a dedicated and... castrated, version of a colonial capital ship. Now, I do have a few 1700t minesweepers to fulfill that role.
PS Looks like a GB game is CA galore. Gonna need CAs even when they were outdated by BCs. This is gonna be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamuka on Dec 1, 2017 8:33:01 GMT -6
Cruisers also have tonnage sweetspots due to some discontinouties in the calculations. 2100t is the lowest one iirc. So you might want to design around these.
|
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Dec 1, 2017 8:56:03 GMT -6
An update: I've been playing through my GB game (restarted to try out some new design concepts) for most of today. For the legacy fleet, I designed the following:
Victoria Class - A colonial patrol cruiser designed to meet foreign tonnage requirements in peacetime and intercept raiders in war. Based on the recommendations of the manual; long range, reliable engines, sacrifices some speed for radius of action.
Conqueror Class - Fleet cruiser, again in line with the recommendation of the manual. 24 knots with performance focused engines and medium range.
Both cruisers have the same armour; 3 inch belt, 1 inch deck. Both have 10 6 inch guns, but Conqueror has an additional battery of 3 inch guns (usually standard for my legacy cruisers) in order to deal with light ships.
Singapore Class - Colonial gunboat for meeting tonnage requirements. Can defend itself against raiding cruisers with an inch of armour on the belt and deck and 2 x 5 inch guns.
Diadem Class - A 11,000 ton armoured cruiser based on a ship from the 'best ship designs' thread, also equipped for colonial service.
It's now 1908, and so far the combination has worked well. On large fleet size, I bought 10 Victorias and 8 Conquerors in my initial fleet. The Victorias and Singapores have met all the necessary tonnage requirements for low priority stations, while the Conquerors have almost exclusively been used in cruiser engagements.
So far, I have fought two wars with Italy, and I'm now in the middle of a much more serious war with Russia. This has left little opportunity for the colonial force to prove itself; Russia, furthermore, has focused everything on its Baltic Fleet in order to become the second strongest power in the Northern European theatre, and therefore is not expected to challenge the colonies either. At 22 knots, the Diadem proved inadequate for raider interception; I chose the speed against my better judgement. I therefore judge that the Victoria, which is yet to see combat, will face similar problems, and Pop's solution of sacrificing armour is more sensible than the manual's suggestion of sacrificing speed.
Logistically, however, the strategy has proved a success. While I was initially intent on providing round-the-clock defence for the Empire with a strong presence in the Mediterranean and South East Asia at all times, this soon proved prohibitively expensive in peacetime. I therefore overhauled my strategic doctrine after the first war with Italy; in periods of low tensions, I would keep just enough tonnage in all regions to satisfy the requirements, allowing for the majority of the fleet to be kept in home waters, ready to re-deploy only when tensions reached a critical point. This allowed for a large number of warships to be kept in reserve, greatly cutting costs. In this sense, I think that the initial investment in various dedicated colonial warships has paid dividends.
|
|
