|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 1, 2018 7:41:11 GMT -6
Morning (in Florida anyway) all, I have a question about what is the best path to travel for late game battlecruisers. My current game is in early 1917 as the USA player. I'm not using any mods for the game except for the ship name lists. For the record it's the same game where we had that nice discussion about early dreadnoughts when we were still saddled with craptacular guns. I started this Yorktown-class battlecruiser in late 1915. It's machinery/armor/hull tech levels are 11/8/8.  Budgets are tight right now because I'm less than 12 months past the signing of a peace treaty with France and tensions are low across the board so I still have 13 months left before Yorktown and its sister ship Saratoga are completed but I wanted to start looking at the next class. That's when I ran into the problem of 12 inch belt or 31 knot requirement for battlecruisers. Apparently it kicks in in January 1916. I had a save from then and the same restrictions applied. I like the concept of the fast battleship -1 turret style of battlecruiser like the Yorktowns above. I had significant success with the type against French battlecruisers in the war. So I'm not really happy about having to drop 4 inches of belt armor for my next class. Even though we all have Directors now and ranges of shooting have increased that doesn't stop fights from occurring at night and in bad weather. And even with my current M/A/H techs at 12/9/9, getting a ship with Yorktowns weapons and armor with a 31 knot speed means a 51,000 ton ship that I couldn't build (max shipyard capacity) even if I wanted to and I don't. So, where to go with the next class? I could just keep building Yorktowns. Advantage - 16 inches of belt armor. I'd be able to outfight any new 12 inch or less main belt design battlecruiser that doesn't have really thick deck armor and stays at range. Disadvantages - will be outpaced by more modern design cruisers and battlecruisers and the only upgrades I'll be able to make are for Improved Elevation and Fire Control. Most of the current modern AI battlecruisers are 27 knot ships as well but at least the Soviets already have 28 knots ships for their latest and the Germans, British and French all have brand new designs under construction as well so their latest designs could be 27 or 28 knots, I don't know yet. The disadvantage will only get worse with time. I could build 12 inch belt armored battlecruisers. Adv - will be faster and able to match/exceed contemporary AI designs. More affordable than a 51,000 ton monster. Dis - vulnerable at close range at night or bad weather or even me having a brain fart and accidentally driving the ship too close to the enemy. I could just not build anymore battlecruisers at all and perhaps build a 24 knot QE-type fast BB. Adv - I'm not building expensive and vulnerable 12 inch belt BCs. Dis - No new battlecruisers, could cause the same problems in a battle scenario as building more Yorktowns as far as being outclassed in speed or I could run out of BCs altogether if I lose too many to battle damage/mines/torpedoes which could screw up my order of battle during fleet engagements. Having two forces (Main and Scouting) provides significant tactical options that I wouldn't want to lose. Also a 24 knot BB will probably be paired with my 21 knot BB's making the extra tonnage used for the machinery worthless. I'm not building 51,000 ton whales in 1917-18. Or probably ever. At least until RTW 2! I'm curious for the forum members' thoughts. Please keep in mind that I'm not using any significant game mods, I prefer the vanilla version of RTW. [Edit - I should have added this originally for the discussion but here is my current gun research and qualities:  It's an option to use the 15 inch +1 guns although I feel it wouldn't be realistic. I imagine the Navy would much prefer 2 calibers for their capital ships rather than 3 for budget and training purposes. ] |
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90 
|
Post by krawa on Mar 1, 2018 8:51:21 GMT -6
Have you considered dropping the Flat deck armor in favor of a sloped deck backing the belt? You loose the AON advantage but 12 inch belt backed by 4 inches or more deck armor is pretty solid for a BC...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 8:55:33 GMT -6
IMO the design is fine at current tech level. Personally I'd still drop the belt and get another turret. But eh not that big a deal. Basically no need to fret now as 12/9/9 weight savings, TPS 2 is still far away from end game designs, and 16" of armor can still be relevant depending on 1917 AP tech (if 100% research speed)
Penetration for 16 in guns
Range - Side / Deck
5000 - 24.3 / 0
8000 - 21.9 / 0.9
12000 - 18.6 / 1.8
15000 - 17.2 / 2.6
20000 - 14.3 / 3.8
25000 - 12.3 / 5.7
Max range: 27800
I'm ofc not talking about using my 18+ armor mod - I keep mod plays only to my mod threads. Anything out here is vanilla game. I think the only issue with ships at this stage is they get obsolete very quickly as tech advance is very fast. I tried a few auto designs with your tech level and the AI usually drops a turret to save weight. But this ship will get out gunned when AI dukes out proper 4 turret BCs. I've lost quite a few ships of this kind in battles by keeping them too long. It is better to scrap them myself. |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 1, 2018 11:19:45 GMT -6
Have you considered dropping the Flat deck armor in favor of a sloped deck backing the belt? You loose the AON advantage but 12 inch belt backed by 4 inches or more deck armor is pretty solid for a BC... No not at all and it's an interesting idea, thank you. I feel like it's a regression that wouldn't happen in real life but the 12 inch Belt/31 knot go-no-go is an artifact of the game so realism in this case shouldn't be a deal breaker. I drew up a preliminary design maintaining the same tonnage as the previous Yorktown for reference although I now have Increased Elevation and like I posted earlier, machinery/armor/hull techs of 12/9/9.  The preliminary design also has the advantage of being more capable against destroyer torpedo attacks which bedeviled me against the French. It's a secondary concern since I had intended to increase the numbers of destroyers traveling with the battleline to give me additional divisions in a battle scenario but it's still worth noting. I tried keeping the secondaries at 16 total and adding a knot in speed but the ship was 500 tons too heavy. Not saying I can't go there but I had to make a 10,000 ton jump when I went from 14 inch armed capital ships to 16 inch armed capital ships and I'm trying to minimize further tonnage creep for at least one more class for economic reasons. The main disadvantage is that you lose the bonus of the all-or-nothing... whoops, I just remembered I need to go back and add BE and DE armor for a sloping design. Wait one. Hmmm, adding 4 inches of Belt Extended and 1 inch of Deck extended puts me almost 1,200 tons in the red even with putting the secondaries back at 16. I'd have to move up to 42,400 tons to make it work. Not ideal but it's still in the realm of possibility. It makes the citadel a tough nut to crack even with only 12 inches of belt armor (see Bismarck) but there is a lot of wasted weight in the sloped armor design. IMO the design is fine at current tech level. Personally I'd still drop the belt and get another turret. But eh not that big a deal. Basically no need to fret now as 12/9/9 weight savings, TPS 2 is still far away from end game designs, and 16" of armor can still be relevant depending on 1917 AP tech (if 100% research speed) I'm ofc not talking about using my 18+ armor mod - I keep mod plays only to my mod threads. Anything out here is vanilla game. I think the only issue with ships at this stage is they get obsolete very quickly as tech advance is very fast. I tried a few auto designs with your tech level and the AI usually drops a turret to save weight. But this ship will get out gunned when AI dukes out proper 4 turret BCs. I've lost quite a few ships of this kind in battles by keeping them too long. It is better to scrap them myself. I hadn't considered dropping the belt and adding the turret back either but again, thank you for the interesting idea. Here is a preliminary design. I was able to stay within the same tonnage. Speed and Armor protection stayed the same except for the belt armor. A 33% increase in firepower hopefully means more hits at range before they can close to take advantage of the weaker belt.  |
|
|
|
Post by ddg on Mar 1, 2018 12:10:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 1, 2018 12:33:30 GMT -6
Why does only two turrets let you get away... never mind. No I hadn't considered that one. I actually don't have either Improved Triple Turrets or Quadruple Turrets researched in this particular game. Heck, I had to buy the original Triple Turret tech from the Japanese.
|
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Mar 1, 2018 13:16:51 GMT -6
Huh. I had no idea that <8 guns would circumvent the 31/12 law... |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 1, 2018 13:28:25 GMT -6
Why does only two turrets let you get away... never mind. I believe you're allowed to 'get away with that' because battlecruisers in a predreadnought or semidreadnought configuration (or something like one) are legal with Ship Design 2+, and a large ship armed with three to seven heavy guns in up to two turrets and having a speed in excess of 23 knots isn't legal as any other ship type - dreadnoughts require at least three turrets or two quad turrets, predreadnought and semidreadnought battleships have a speed limit of 20-23 knots, and armored cruisers can't carry heavy guns unless they're either no larger than 10,000 tons or no faster than 22-23 knots. If you don't want to accept the reliability penalties and don't want to accept dropping to a 12" belt, there is an alternative: Right-click on the most heavily armored battlecruiser you currently have in commission and open its design for rebuild, click 'replace machinery' to free up whatever tonnage you can, and make whatever changes you want to make within the limits of what the game will allow you to do for a reconstruction. Save the design under whatever name you want, decline to rebuild the ship that you based the design on, go to the Build Ship dialogue, find your rebuild design, and lay down however many ships of that design that you want to build. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 1, 2018 15:25:41 GMT -6
Why does only two turrets let you get away... never mind. No I hadn't considered that one. I actually don't have either Improved Triple Turrets or Quadruple Turrets researched in this particular game. Heck, I had to buy the original Triple Turret tech from the Japanese. In addition to making sure a design is classed as a BC,a <8 gun AB design (or an ABL design if you're willing to have it classed as a BB, or are before 1916) has the advantage of significant tonnage savings (because the belt doesn't have to be as long to cover the magazines and machinery with all the guns being at one end of the ship), so I tend to switch to 2x3 AB as soon as I have the B turret and triple turrets available, regardless of the reduced reliability before improved triple turrets. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 19:13:49 GMT -6
There's no need to regress to 2 turret layout gen 0 BC equivalents just to have some belt more than 12", pretty soon armor's not gonna matter. 1920 onwards AI BCs are well designed lethal glass cannons and only way to beat them is using better glass cannons. Make it 31kts to be able to catch everything or run away if outnumbered. As much armor on the turrets to preserve firepower. 12 16" or 10 17" tubes in 4 turrets. As for belt, 10" or even 9" is enough to fend off some engine room hits.
But that is a few years off from 1916 yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by klavohunter on Mar 1, 2018 19:15:17 GMT -6
In the late-game, I normally end up with Iowa-style Battlecruisers. 27 knots, 12" belt armor, 18" turret faces, and 9 of whatever big guns my nation is using.
They end up beating the AI's paper-armored fast-mover BCs that pack 10 or 12 big guns in a godawful 5 turret setup.
In my latest game as the CSA, I saw most 'second-rate' nations give up on BCs except for a token pair of them, and instead invest in a lot of Heavy Cruisers to try and game the battle generator into putting them up against my CLs instead of my BCs. (The USA and UK were rebuilding their BB/BC fleets like mad after my wars with them sank nearly their entire fleets, and Russia weirdly maintained a 1:1 ratio of BB:BC.)
My guess is that that was the AI's response to my utter dominance in late-game Battlecruiser fights, where my combination of design and handling usually sank the AI for no losses. Only in the Battleship Engagements I committed to did I lose a BC or two, in the process of utterly murdering most AI capital ships that came out to play. (Did I mention I cheated myself a bunch of extra Base Resources after winning wars, and took some away from the USA?
|
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 2, 2018 0:15:31 GMT -6
There's no need to regress to 2 turret layout gen 0 BC equivalents just to have some belt more than 12", pretty soon armor's not gonna matter. 1920 onwards AI BCs are well designed lethal glass cannons and only way to beat them is using better glass cannons. Make it 31kts to be able to catch everything or run away if outnumbered. As much armor on the turrets to preserve firepower. 12 16" or 10 17" tubes in 4 turrets. As for belt, 10" or even 9" is enough to fend off some engine room hits. But that is a few years off from 1916 yet. It's not just to have more than 12" of armor that I use 2x3 AB, and I'd hardly call 2x3 AB a Gen 0 layout either. The weight savings from the all-forward layout, and from limiting the ship to 6 guns, result in a significantly lower tonnage (and thus cost) than AI ships with the same speed, armor, and gun caliber, and with the same tonnage allows significantly more armor for the same speed and caliber, even discounting the 12" limit. My late-game battlecruisers are not glass cannons and tend to handily wipe the floor with AI battlecruisers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2018 1:43:56 GMT -6
There's no need to regress to 2 turret layout gen 0 BC equivalents just to have some belt more than 12", pretty soon armor's not gonna matter. 1920 onwards AI BCs are well designed lethal glass cannons and only way to beat them is using better glass cannons. Make it 31kts to be able to catch everything or run away if outnumbered. As much armor on the turrets to preserve firepower. 12 16" or 10 17" tubes in 4 turrets. As for belt, 10" or even 9" is enough to fend off some engine room hits. But that is a few years off from 1916 yet. It's not just to have more than 12" of armor that I use 2x3 AB, and I'd hardly call 2x3 AB a Gen 0 layout either. The weight savings from the all-forward layout, and from limiting the ship to 6 guns, result in a significantly lower tonnage (and thus cost) than AI ships with the same speed, armor, and gun caliber, and with the same tonnage allows significantly more armor for the same speed and caliber, even discounting the 12" limit. My late-game battlecruisers are not glass cannons and tend to handily wipe the floor with AI battlecruisers. Interesting... can u give me a late game save? |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 2, 2018 2:14:52 GMT -6
There were several ideas to build battlecruiser. There is another one which I would not prefer however it is good to mention - Jackie Fishers White elephant. Speed: 31 knots Armor: 6" belt, 2" deck AON Torpedo protection: none or 2 Secondary guns: 24x4" w/o shields Main guns: 15" guns +1 quality (if I have these guns I never use higher caliber for BC as their penetration potential is great), number depends on your preference of displacement I built this design in 1922 (never tested as I playing only up to 1925 and there was no war at the end). There are 16" guns as I have only 15" with -1 quality. The secondary guns are different to proposal as I used standard secondary guns on all capital ships. It use different technology but to see basic concept you can see bellow. My idea using them was to support battleship and from the second row behind battleline or support firepower at any part of battlefield as needed. There were half of displacement of previous class built with 6x16", 15" belt and 31 knots, designed in 1918.  |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 2, 2018 6:20:54 GMT -6
Aesthetically, I hate the all-forward design. I'm not a huge fan of not having firepower coverage for a quarter of my field of fire either but ddg and rimbecano are right about the weight savings and the fact that 2 turrets with less than or equal to seven guns let me keep my belt armor up. The two turret, less than eight gun exception works for the AY configuration as well (as aeson pointed out the game needed a classification for the early, fast pre-dreadnoughts that didn't fit in the rules as Bs or CAs) but you don't get the weight savings. I guess I need to put my hang-up about the oil tanker look aside and give it serious consideration. I'm also intrigued by skwabie 's and klavohunter 's ideas about better glass cannons. Both concepts could certainly work. My first thought is that having double the firepower would probably be the winner for good-weather daylight battles but if those ships get caught in a scenario that starts in bad weather or at night they risk getting one-shotted. I did that myself to a British battlecruiser in a previous game in a night battle with an 8 inch armed proto-heavy cruiser. Put an AP shell right through a turret at close range and the ship blew right up in keeping with the traditions of the Royal Navy battlecruiser fleet. skwabie and klavohunter addressed that particular concern with their heavy turret armor but you can still get to the magazine straight through the belt at close range. dorn , I'm amazed you got six 16 inch guns on a 22,000 ton hull but seems like a very specialized design. As you wrote, more of an analog to land artillery supporting forward deployed tanks. I prefer my battlescruisers to be general purpose ships that can do all of the missions the game might set in front of it. |
|
_(edited)_Screenshot_(739).png?width=180&height=180&fit=bounds)
