|
Post by hogzkrieg on Feb 27, 2018 7:53:01 GMT -6
What are the inherent advantages of the Light Cruiser configuration over the Protected Cruiser?
As far as I can tell it's that, once the relevant turret and technologies have been researched, you can have 3+ Centreline Turrets and so not need as many guns as a whole to have a decent broadside.
I've found in my recent games that when the LC technology is first researched any new designs using the new configuration do not have any advantages over my existing Protected Cruisers. This of course does not include the speed advantage but my understanding is that is due to general technological advances such as machinery and armour becoming lighter so a newly designed Protected Cruiser would also have the same speed advantage over the old ones.
In my last play through I actually re-built and upgraded the machinery (something I don't normally do) in some of my legacy fleet Protected Cruisers because it increased their speed to within a knot of my new Light Cruisers and their belt and turret armour where still the same thickness as the new cruisers I was turning out. It just didn't seem worth scrapping them so I used them in the colonies and they were still successful into the mid 20's. I know it's expensive to refit to this extent but it saves about half the build time of a new cruiser.
Late game, when you can put double guns in a turret and have 5 centreline mounts I can see LC's are clearly the superior choice but early to mid game there doesn't really seem to be much in it.
So I guess my question is, are Light Cruisers a straight upgrade over Protected Cruisers and what are their specific advantages?
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Feb 27, 2018 8:40:15 GMT -6
If protected cruisers can avoid action, they might be worth a service to prolong their life. However, they are much more vulnerable to sinking. If you use them as fleet scouts & escorts, your loss rates will be high. Their protection scheme against shell and torpedo is downright primitive.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 27, 2018 8:45:35 GMT -6
It's a good question. In the mid-game I believe there is a grey area. If you are going to go oil fired I think you have to have the light cruiser configuration because you no longer have coal bunkers soaking up damage from hits. Because of that, the armor required to replace the protection of the coal bunkers means that the early tech weight savings from switching to oil may not make up the difference. One of the advantages of oil firing is you don't lose speed over the course of a scenario due to your stokers getting exhausted and/or your grates getting fouled so that might make a difference in a long cruiser vs. cruiser chase. So yeah, for smaller CL's it might make sense in the mid-game to stay with coal where with larger (6,000+ tons) CL's you probably have enough weight available for whatever armor you need. Like you mentioned, light cruisers can have more than 2 centerline turrets. I kind of kind of hedge that advantage with my protected cruisers by using the 1 and 2 positions (Tandem forward) instead of the A mount. That gives me two guns that can fire forward and I can put two guns aft on the centerline. I'm not sure what opens up the V position but I'll use that for my second centerline gun as soon as I see it available. Edit - fishy 's post on the SAP thread reminded me of another advantage of the Protected cruiser scheme even though I personally believe it's a player exploit. Protected cruisers can use 8 inch guns while light cruisers are limited to 6 inch guns so there is that reason to stay with the protected cruiser scheme later into the game.
|
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by krawa on Feb 27, 2018 10:31:03 GMT -6
The advantage of the LC configuration over the Protected Cruiser is that LC is much tougher when it comes to CL vs. CL battles, that means LC config takes less damage from 6" or smaller guns, especially against HE Ammo.
|
|
|
Post by hogzkrieg on Feb 27, 2018 10:57:28 GMT -6
Thanks guys, that really helpful. Guess I will make producing Light Cruisers a bit more a priority (once I've researched the tech) in my next my game.
On an historical note, from my limited reading on the subject I was under impression that Protected Cruisers didn't carry belt armour, they just relied on an armoured deck and coal bunkers for protection and if it did carry belt armour it would be classified as an Armoured Cruiser.
When I design protected cruisers and when looking at other players designs on the forums, everyone uses at least some belt armour. Is this a glitch like with the 8" guns or is it in there for game play reasons? Has anyone tried a protected cruiser without belt armour? I don't imagine it would last very long in a fight...
|
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by krawa on Feb 27, 2018 11:33:38 GMT -6
When selecting the Protected cruiser armour scheme B represents the sloped part of the deck armour while D represents the flat section in the middle
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 27, 2018 14:17:50 GMT -6
An arguable advantage that hasn't been mentioned yet is that CLs using the protected cruiser armor scheme can carry twin turrets before CLs using the sloped or flat deck armor schemes can. You do take rate of fire and reliability penalties for doing so, and the penalty is bad enough at game start that I wouldn't advise it then, but the penalty halves with Medium Wing Turrets (c.1901), halves again with Reliable Training and Elevation Gear (c.1914), and disappears with Improved Reliable Training and Elevation Gear (c.1920). Also, not that I've ever made use of the ability to do so, but once you develop Double Gun Mounts on CL (c.1921) the game no longer cares if you put twin turrets into positions other than A and Y or triple turrets on the centerline on CLs using the protected cruiser armor scheme, so the firepower discrepancy between a late-game 'modern' light cruiser and a late-game second class protected cruiser isn't quite as significant as you might expect. This isn't as good as this but, at least insofar as weight of fire on various arcs is concerned, it also isn't as much worse as you might expect. There are even (very) narrow arcs where the example 'modern' light protected cruiser (CLP) can put more guns on target than the 'modern' light armored cruiser (CL) - the example CL has 6 guns from 0 to 45 degrees, 18 guns from 45 to 135 degrees, and 6 guns from 135 to 180 degrees off the bow, while the example CLP has 5 guns from 0 to 30 degrees, 8 guns from 30 to 45 degrees, 12 guns from 45 to 60 degrees, 14 guns from 60 to 120 degrees, 12 guns from 120 to 135 degrees, 8 guns from 135 to 150 degrees, and 5 guns from 150 to 180 degrees off the bow. This gives the example CLP a one-gun disadvantage between 0 and 30 degrees, a two-gun advantage between 30 and 45 degrees, a six-gun disadvantage between 45 and 60 degrees, a four-gun disadvantage between 60 and 120 degrees, a six-gun disadvantage between 120 and 135 degrees, a two-gun advantage between 135 and 150 degrees, and a one-gun disadvantage between 150 and 180 degrees off the bow, compared to the example CL. Obviously, there are other designs you could use and they could have different fire distributions, with correspondingly different degrees of advantage or disadvantage on various arcs. Is this a glitch like with the 8" guns or is it in there for game play reasons? Just a note: 8" guns on the protected cruisers that the game classes as CLs aren't a glitch. It's an intentional mechanic allowing the player to model certain historical small or midsize cruisers which served into the period covered by the game and carried ~8" guns, such as the British Mersey and German Victoria Louise classes or the American ABC cruisers. It's an exploitable mechanic because the computer can't really counter the player's 8" CLs, and it's a bit of an anachronistic mechanic for any non-legacy cruisers that the player builds because ~8" guns more or less stopped being used on new second and third class cruisers in the late 1890s, but it isn't a glitch. Much the same is true of the CAs that the player can build with heavy (>10") guns or with the protected cruiser armor scheme, although the speed limit on large heavy gun CAs and the lower protection offered by the protected cruiser armor scheme makes these a bit more difficult to exploit. All CLs, whether protected or armored, are required to have 1" belt armor or the design is illegal; CAs, including those using the protected cruiser armor configuration, appear to need at least 2.5" belt armor. That being said, yes, I have built minimally-armored light protected cruisers for service as light surface raiders, as I tend to feel that armor isn't terribly worthwhile for a light surface raider - while it may very well be armed well enough to kill a larger cruiser, a light surface raider really isn't meant to fight other warships and it'll stay alive longer by running away than by attempting to fight. As were for example the British 14,000t Powerful class first class cruisers.
|
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by krawa on Feb 28, 2018 1:48:27 GMT -6
I understand your reasoning for not armoring a light surface raider, but an 8000t 34,5million bucks cruiser isn't IMO a light ship. If it isn't meant to fight other warships what's the point of putting so many guns on it?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 28, 2018 3:00:43 GMT -6
I understand your reasoning for not armoring a light surface raider, but an 8000t 34,5million bucks cruiser isn't IMO a light ship. If it isn't meant to fight other warships what's the point of putting so many guns on it? Who called an 8000t cruiser a light surface raider?
|
|
|
Post by hogzkrieg on Feb 28, 2018 3:22:40 GMT -6
When selecting the Protected cruiser armour scheme B represents the sloped part of the deck armour while D represents the flat section in the middle Thanks Krawa, that makes perfect sense.
And thanks Bcoop and Aeson for the detailed responses.
Aeson, a question on the second design in your first post (the AoN Light Cruiser). Would you build a ship with a Conning Tower with such light armour? I'm always in the habit of packing as much armour into the conning tower as possible but I don't really have a good reason for doing it other than that it doesn't weigh too much. Assume later in the game when fighting takes place at long range it's not so necessary?
|
|
fishy
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by fishy on Feb 28, 2018 3:49:04 GMT -6
It's a good question. In the mid-game I believe there is a grey area. If you are going to go oil fired I think you have to have the light cruiser configuration because you no longer have coal bunkers soaking up damage from hits. Because of that, the armor required to replace the protection of the coal bunkers means that the early tech weight savings from switching to oil may not make up the difference. One of the advantages of oil firing is you don't lose speed over the course of a scenario due to your stokers getting exhausted and/or your grates getting fouled so that might make a difference in a long cruiser vs. cruiser chase. So yeah, for smaller CL's it might make sense in the mid-game to stay with coal where with larger (6,000+ tons) CL's you probably have enough weight available for whatever armor you need. Like you mentioned, light cruisers can have more than 2 centerline turrets. I kind of kind of hedge that advantage with my protected cruisers by using the 1 and 2 positions (Tandem forward) instead of the A mount. That gives me two guns that can fire forward and I can put two guns aft on the centerline. I'm not sure what opens up the V position but I'll use that for my second centerline gun as soon as I see it available. Edit - fishy 's post on the SAP thread reminded me of another advantage of the Protected cruiser scheme even though I personally believe it's a player exploit. Protected cruisers can use 8 inch guns while light cruisers are limited to 6 inch guns so there is that reason to stay with the protected cruiser scheme later into the game. I can see the advantage of building CLs with 8" guns to take down other CLs. But I vaguely remember Tortugapower saying in one of his videos that there is a penalty to hit DDs with anything bigger than a 6" gun. Before secondary directors, I just feel that a CL is so much better than DDs at screening enemy DDs. And to give it up for the ability to kill other CLs seem to me like giving up your primary role for a secondary role. CLs have many roles but IMO their primary roles are foreign stations and screening for capital ships. Secondary roles are raiding and destroying other CLs. Usually with max 6" guns, your 5000ton to 6000ton CLs will beat most other CLs. I have built CLs for raiding but I often feel it has little effect. Sometimes very little raiding gets done. Sometimes you have blockaded the enemy so you get no raiding happening. And then your ships get scrapped or interned even with extreme range in a seazone where you have ports. So I've sort of stopped building CLs for raiding. As such I just concentrate building them for Foreign stations and screening. In my current game as France, I have oil firing CLs at foreign stations. This is so they can run away from CAs and BCs (no foul grating). However, my newest CLs are coal firing CLs which I keep in Northern Europe for screening. The coal bunkers soak up amazing amounts of damage and I don't really care if an enemy CLs get away occasionally in cruiser battles because of foul grating. Its so gratifying when the enemy BC/BB gets over aggressive, only to eat torpedoes and watch my CLs get away. Its such a complete role reversal since I was the one who usually end up eating torpedoes in previous games. I digress. Ultimately, I don't think 8" guns are worth it.
|
|
fishy
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by fishy on Feb 28, 2018 4:04:00 GMT -6
I understand your reasoning for not armoring a light surface raider, but an 8000t 34,5million bucks cruiser isn't IMO a light ship. If it isn't meant to fight other warships what's the point of putting so many guns on it? For raiding, you can build extreme/long range 2100 ton CLs with 2x5" main guns and a few secondary guns with a relatively high max speed. I think I built some 23 knot max speed 2100 ton CLs as France at game start for raiding. I got the idea from a post in the "post your best ship design" thread. Someone was building extreme range 19kt 2100 ton CLs for raiding. I tried the 19kt CLs. They did well early game. For some reason bigger and stronger enemy CLs with higher top speeds would not chase you after they intercepted you. This changed in the later years. So I decided to build faster raiders. Ultimately I just didn't find raiding to be all that effective. Maybe the RNG just didn't favor me, but I got relatively few merchants compared to the AI nations. At the same time, maybe because I like playing medium size fleets, I always seem to feel cash strapped. I have a hard time maintaining 8 CLs (which I consider to be minimum) without having to build another 4-6 raiding CLs (even though they are so cheap). So I stopped building CLs for raiding.
|
|
|
Post by hogzkrieg on Feb 28, 2018 5:40:12 GMT -6
Fishy, out of interest, when you say you put your CL's on Foreign Stations, do you actually give them the FS order from the orders tab or do you base them in the colonies manually?
I normally do it manually but in my current game as the UK its pretty onerous task, especially when you need to rebuild and refit your colonial cruisers. Do cruisers marked as FS still participate in wars like a cruiser manually placed in a colonial region of Active Fleet duty would?
I'm the same in that I primarily design/use CL's for screening and foreign stations. On medium fleet size I try to maintain 4 of the newest CL's in my home waters and have as may as required in the colonies to satisfy foreign tonnage. It does seem that the game prioritises cruiser engagements though and so you can quickly accrue VP's from catching raiders so your CL's can't be too small/cheap.
|
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by krawa on Feb 28, 2018 10:54:29 GMT -6
I understand your reasoning for not armoring a light surface raider, but an 8000t 34,5million bucks cruiser isn't IMO a light ship. If it isn't meant to fight other warships what's the point of putting so many guns on it? Who called an 8000t cruiser a light surface raider? Sorry, misunderstanding from my side
I just couldn't figure out why one would build either of the CL's you posted for comparison. Guess it has to do with that I only play Admirals mode and never much past 1925
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Feb 28, 2018 11:50:20 GMT -6
It's a good question. In the mid-game I believe there is a grey area. If you are going to go oil fired I think you have to have the light cruiser configuration because you no longer have coal bunkers soaking up damage from hits. Because of that, the armor required to replace the protection of the coal bunkers means that the early tech weight savings from switching to oil may not make up the difference. One of the advantages of oil firing is you don't lose speed over the course of a scenario due to your stokers getting exhausted and/or your grates getting fouled so that might make a difference in a long cruiser vs. cruiser chase. So yeah, for smaller CL's it might make sense in the mid-game to stay with coal where with larger (6,000+ tons) CL's you probably have enough weight available for whatever armor you need. Like you mentioned, light cruisers can have more than 2 centerline turrets. I kind of kind of hedge that advantage with my protected cruisers by using the 1 and 2 positions (Tandem forward) instead of the A mount. That gives me two guns that can fire forward and I can put two guns aft on the centerline. I'm not sure what opens up the V position but I'll use that for my second centerline gun as soon as I see it available. Edit - fishy 's post on the SAP thread reminded me of another advantage of the Protected cruiser scheme even though I personally believe it's a player exploit. Protected cruisers can use 8 inch guns while light cruisers are limited to 6 inch guns so there is that reason to stay with the protected cruiser scheme later into the game. I can see the advantage of building CLs with 8" guns to take down other CLs. But I vaguely remember Tortugapower saying in one of his videos that there is a penalty to hit DDs with anything bigger than a 6" gun. Before secondary directors, I just feel that a CL is so much better than DDs at screening enemy DDs. And to give it up for the ability to kill other CLs seem to me like giving up your primary role for a secondary role. I use 8" legacy protected cruisers quite often. You can have 5-6" secondary guns which can handle destroyers pretty well and use your 2x2x8" against enemy protected and armored cruisers. This large protected cruisers with 2x2x8" guns are able to even fight small armored cruisers of AI designs, especially the ones with only 6-7" guns.
|
|