|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 2, 2018 7:58:45 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. not as much of a white elephant as HMS Incomparable
|
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by krawa on Mar 2, 2018 10:53:40 GMT -6
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. Ok, what's the purpose of adding 4 inches of BE? It's not going to stop a heavy shell and for splinter protection against near misses I would consider 1,5-2,5 inches, nothing more. Apart from the BE armor what do you consider wasted weight? I consider it a tradeoff, against direct fire sloped deck is superior for a given armor weight, against plunging fire flat deck is potentially better...
Making BE armor more useful you could use narrow belt and increase BE to almost match your belt (Say 12 inch belt and 10,5 inch BE). That way you could increase the area covered by "useful" armor (=armor that has at least a chance to stop an AP shell)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2018 10:59:19 GMT -6
OK. I stand corrected. The AB layout is actually a solid design. Tests: All nations all tech researched. Battle is GB v France. 7x18" AB design (TPS4, 115RPG, 6.5" turret top) 12x16" ABVY design (same TPS4, 115RPG, 6.5" turret top) They're pitted against 2 French BCs in 2v2 cruiser action. Their spec is.. the usual, 39900t, 12x16" in 5 turrets, 10-11" vertical armor and 3-4" horizontal armor. Weather is Day, Dead calm, Clear. By editing save file I swap the 2 TestBC classes so each class takes part in the same battle where everything else remains the same. Result is both classes can reliably beat the French BCs. However, details: If I keep the range long, the AB has a very easy time winning. They take significantly less damage compared to ABVY. If I deliberately take wind disadvantage and let the range close somewhat, the situation completely turns around and the AB layout has a much harder time. There seems to be a vulnerable zone around 15k-10k yards where the AB is outshot by the AI BCs while the ABVY doesn't have this problem. I think the better design here is the ABVY because it can consistently beat AI designs in all conditions, but this is certainly not definite. Next I edit the save file so as to make the 2 testBC classes fight each other, and the difference is obvious. Using the AB layout I can reliably beat the ABVY. Using the ABVY I have a hard time, likely 50-50 chance of beating the AB layout. Details: Very simple this time. Using the ABVY, if I can maintain long range, it is a win. If I let the AB close, it is a loss. Analysis: The AB layout finally has good amount of armor that at long range its armor can still matter. Evidently the 17" belt can still bounce a lot of 16" shots at long range. However once within 15k yards the protection is gone and it has its problems, the 18" packs a big punch at range, while at medium to close it falls short in turret redundancy and fire volume. Essentially it is a very good battleship. And this is the first ship I came upon that its performance differs so much according to range. Very interesting. The ABVY layout is a bully ship, lightly armored, sort of (sort of!) the traditional battlecruiser. Very much gun. It has the total upper hand vs AI BCs which are lightly armored, but the displacement used on firepower becomes a waste when going against good protection. My personal conclusion: I indeed like the AB. 2v2 is most common, but there're many times it is 2v3 or even 2v4 and the AB is the one I see that can come out alive when outnumbered. Downside is lack of rearward guns and need to fight at range, so it takes more concentration on player's part which I've no problems with. A very handy thing in using the AB layout I find is the all forward turrets make chasing down fleeing enemies very easy. There's no need to go broadside. Testing takes a lotta time but the conclusion is enlightening. Another interesting thing is why the AB doesn't suffer the same vulnerability against the AI BCs at 15k yds- when fighting the ABVYs. My guess is the AI BCs have 5 turrets. Same paper armor on the turrets, but at 15k or less it doesn't make a difference, and thus 1 more turret means more redundancy. It is a subject for more testing but my time has become limited. P.S. Also made a 45000t AB. 17" guns and everything else same. It can still take down the 2 French AI BCs. So for ones that don't like very big ships there are certainly spare room to play with. I only note not to drop the armor too much.
|
|
|
Post by ddg on Mar 2, 2018 14:15:06 GMT -6
I think how well the AB configuration works for you depends on how you use your battlecruisers. I find mine tend to take the most punishment in large-scale battles where I'm using the scouting force aggressively to try to force an engagement. In that situation, the heavy armor this kind of BC can carry helps them hang tough with the enemy's battle force until my line can come up. I haven't found the lack of an aft arc to be very punishing as it's fairly rare for the main threat to be behind my BCs—I've even found it beneficial on occasion when they pass a crippled and sinking enemy ship and the missing arc forces them to retarget on still-fighting-fit ships ahead. In small BC on BC engagements I've generally found that either I can stand and fight broadside on or the enemy will turn away from me and the all-forward layout comes into its own. In my current, post-1925, campaign, I've lost only one AB BC, and that loss is primarily attributable to being torpedoed twice by my own destroyers.
If, doctrinally, that sounds right to you, I'd encourage you to try out an AB BC. You might find it works well for you.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 2, 2018 15:02:16 GMT -6
Skwabie: I tend to follow a doctrine of seeking long-range engagements, so given the tendency of AI ships to be belt-heavy and deck-light, it should be obvious why I favor the AB design.
The dynamics of the AB vs ABVY matchup are interesting: both have the same deck, and the ABVY has a heavier broadside with a lighter belt, so it will tend to do better at plunging fire ranges than at direct fire ranges. However, the AB can close the range quickly without taking any of its guns out of arc, and while the ABVY matches the AB for speed and can keep the range open, to do so it has to mask half its broadside, at which point its lighter belt and smaller caliber leave it with no advantages (in gun count, gun caliber, or armor) over the AB.
The ABVY will probably do better in a full fleet engagement, where torpedo forces can be used to keep the range open, but mauling enemy destroyers is one of the reasons I like to have a 24x6 secondary battery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2018 15:10:11 GMT -6
If, doctrinally, that sounds right to you, I'd encourage you to try out an AB BC. You might find it works well for you. Ah, when actually playing I ofc use my mod nowadayz. But I think vanilla end game BC design is quite interesting as how does one address the issue of protection with so much weight constraint. It seems the AB turret can be a very good answer. I guess if you use them aggressively as battleships, which they essentially are, a 2 ship line unit still has limited staying power. However it still is a step up from a pure BC unit which can only stay very long range or finish stragglers. Yet again in SAI when there is OOB management I put at least 4 ships in 1 division into the scout force, as UK or late game GE it is 2 divs of 3 ships minimum...
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Mar 2, 2018 20:34:28 GMT -6
I haven't found the lack of an aft arc to be very punishing as it's fairly rare for the main threat to be behind my BCs—I've even found it beneficial on occasion when they pass a crippled and sinking enemy ship and the missing arc forces them to retarget on still-fighting-fit ships ahead. This sentence alone has convinced me to try the 7-gun AB. Oddly, I played a game called Battlecruiser (for Commodore 64) back in.. '86? - and I found the game-breaking killer ship I could create was a 7-gun dreadnought.
|
|
|
Post by director on Mar 2, 2018 22:16:18 GMT -6
The lack of rear-facing fire could be remedied by using V or X and Y turrets, assuming the limitation is two turrets and not two forward-facing turrets.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 2, 2018 23:01:35 GMT -6
The lack of rear-facing fire could be remedied by using V or X and Y turrets, assuming the limitation is two turrets and not two forward-facing turrets. The limitation is two turrets and seven guns. You can use any two turret positions you want - AB, AY, VY, FK, CW, etc - and as long as you don't have more than seven guns in those two turrets you can make a battlecruiser with a >12" belt and <31kn design speed. Personally, I like AY, but AB qualifies for the short citadel bonus and gives you a wider arc in which the entirety of your main battery can bear on the target, at the cost of an inability to concentrate fire on the rear arc. I don't think I'd go in for VY or XY, though; I tend to think being unable to fire on targets in your forward arc is likely to be a more severe handicap than being unable to fire on targets on your rear arc would be, and as neither VY nor XY qualifies for a short citadel bonus that configuration doesn't really offer much to offset the lack of forward-arc firepower.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 2, 2018 23:06:32 GMT -6
Director, as far as just being able to use >12" of armor at <31 kt speed while retaining BC classification, you just need 7 or fewer guns in two or fewer turrets, so you could do AY. For the short citadel weight bonus, you need B turret, and no non-forward turrets (so something like AB or ABL). For both of those, you need AB specifically.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 2, 2018 23:32:26 GMT -6
For the short citadel weight bonus, you need B turret, and no non-forward turrets (so something like AB or ABL). For both of those, you need AB specifically. The short citadel configurations are specifically AB, ABL, and ABQ. For whatever reason, ABC does not qualify for the short citadel bonus, nor do BC, BL, BQ, 12B, BDE, BFG, or similar configurations (not that I see any real reason to want to do any of those, since AB is almost strictly superior to all of them even before factoring in the short citadel bonus).
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 3, 2018 1:32:27 GMT -6
For the short citadel weight bonus, you need B turret, and no non-forward turrets (so something like AB or ABL). For both of those, you need AB specifically. The short citadel configurations are specifically AB, ABL, and ABQ. For whatever reason, ABC does not qualify for the short citadel bonus, nor do BC, BL, BQ, 12B, BDE, BFG, or similar configurations (not that I see any real reason to want to do any of those, since AB is almost strictly superior to all of them even before factoring in the short citadel bonus). The only configuration that does not give the short citadel bonus that I really think should have it and see a point in using is A. 1x3 A *should* be lighter than 1x2 + 1x1 AB, but it isn't, because it doesn't get the short citadel bonus. This isn't something I'd use in capital ships, except maybe a predreadnought if I got triple turrets before B turret, but my mid-game cruiser force often includes a few 8000-ton-ish CAs with an all-forward main battery of three 8"-ish guns, and with triple turrets, it should make sense to put all of those in one turret, but it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 3, 2018 2:29:15 GMT -6
The only configuration that does not give the short citadel bonus that I really think should have it and see a point in using is A. 1x3 A *should* be lighter than 1x2 + 1x1 AB, but it isn't, because it doesn't get the short citadel bonus. This isn't something I'd use in capital ships, except maybe a predreadnought if I got triple turrets before B turret, but my mid-game cruiser force often includes a few 8000-ton-ish CAs with an all-forward main battery of three 8"-ish guns, and with triple turrets, it should make sense to put all of those in one turret, but it doesn't. I could see a point in using AC, ACL, or ACQ instead of AB, ABL, or ABQ if the AC/ACL/ACQ configurations qualified for the short citadel bonus, though I don't normally use any linear configuration other than AY after getting superfiring turrets. Linear works about as well as superfiring in broadsides and saves some tonnage, so it's not unthinkable that it might be used, either. The extra deck space required for a linear three-turret configuration compared to a superfiring three-turret configuration might cause some citadel length issues, though on the other hand the way the game draws the turrets in an ABL/ABQ configuration suggests that ACL/ACQ shouldn't take up much more space - the barrels on B turret don't overlay A turret, and B turret doesn't overlay the barrels of L turret or any part of Q turret, suggesting that the turrets are relatively widely separated as on the French Dunkerque and Richelieu rather than being packed tightly as on the British Nelson.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2018 4:52:27 GMT -6
The lack of rear-facing fire could be remedied by using V or X and Y turrets, assuming the limitation is two turrets and not two forward-facing turrets. I feel that if you're gonna do 2 turrets might as well do AB. In my tests the level of armor AB was able to offer was just on the edge of being effective. An AY either has to let go some of that or cost more tonnage. It can be successful I'm sure, like I can ofc morph the 17" AB 45k ton into an AY without busting 52k. I'm just not sure it is worth the extra cost. Heck I'm willing to pay extra cost for AB. As it changes the frontal 90 deg arc into full broadside arc. It is much less a PITA chasing down ships. "Oh I stil have 20% ammo why no hits?" A less healthy ship and 5 more mouse clicks later reveals that the frontal turrets are outta ammo. Bah.
|
|
|
Post by director on Mar 3, 2018 9:20:45 GMT -6
I was being just a tad disingenuous, but I do appreciate the detailed responses.
In any case, I don't feel that a lack of rear-facing fire is a great handicap; I've used ABL ships frequently (including one cruiser design that left the stern free for floatplanes, like the Japanese Tone) and in my current German game I have AB battlecruisers (but with two quad turrets). It is the AI that would benefit from the XY ship; since the AI always tends to run it would make most sense for them to adopt that 'donkey' rear-kicking design.
|
|