|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 8, 2018 17:01:40 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)
Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you, I got busy and lost track of this thread. You are probably right that I should just stick to splinter protection for the extended sections of the ship. But I think it emphasizes the problems of not having the AoN advantage against flooding. skwabie. That was an interesting test, thanks for conducting it. I have a question about the results though. Does having 18 inch guns on the AB design and 16 inch guns on the ABVY design skew the results? I would have liked to see how the AB design does compared to the ABVY when they carry the same size gun. Not a criticism, I do think it was good work and I believe you all have convinced me (again) to move out of my comfort zone and go to an all-forward design for my next BC. In the game year since I originally posted I finally got improved triple and 1st generation quad turrets. I also just commissioned Yorktown so once I get the 1918 techs for machinery, hull and armor I'll be ready to cut some steel.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 8, 2018 19:13:12 GMT -6
Does having 18 inch guns on the AB design and 16 inch guns on the ABVY design skew the results? Probably a bit because an 18" shell is about 40% heavier than a 16" shell, but on the other hand Gundata.dat lists both 16" and 18" guns as having the same rate of fire, and for skwabie's Australia the only place I'd be concerned about the difference in penetrating power is the turret face armor - the 12" belt isn't going to exclude either 16" or 18" hits at likely engagement ranges while the 4.5" deck and 6.5" turret top is sufficient to exclude both 16" and 18" shells at most feasible engagement ranges, but there's a ~3000 yard band where 18" shells will and 16" shells will not penetrate 17.5" turret face armor (roughly 12-15kyd, using the penetration numbers listed for 16"/Q0 and 18"/Q0 on the 1922 tab of your gun ranges and penetration spreadsheet). I tend to use 15" or 16" 2x3 or 4&3 AB/AY designs and find their performance satisfactory, myself. 17" and especially 18" designs have to be quite a bit larger and therefore more expensive than similar 15" and 16" designs, and I'm rather ambivalent about whether the performance of the heavier guns justifies the significantly higher cost of the ships carrying them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 19:59:58 GMT -6
That was an interesting test, thanks for conducting it. I have a question about the results though. Does having 18 inch guns on the AB design and 16 inch guns on the ABVY design skew the results? I would have liked to see how the AB design does compared to the ABVY when they carry the same size gun. Not a criticism, I do think it was good work and I believe you all have convinced me (again) to move out of my comfort zone and go to an all-forward design for my next BC. In the game year since I originally posted I finally got improved triple and 1st generation quad turrets. I also just commissioned Yorktown so once I get the 1918 techs for machinery, hull and armor I'll be ready to cut some steel. well... the tests were on all tech researched so not sure with AP pen going down a few levels plus others wouldn't tip the balance to other designs... in fact I reckon it'd be good help if ya post the game save. and these are my test saves so they can be played with www.mediafire.com/file/oy1kn6u5ytko3oa/Save_testBC.rar
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 13, 2018 19:09:35 GMT -6
It's now March 1919. This is the design I just laid the first keel down on. I'm planning on 4 total to match the 3 German and 4 Soviet 40,000 ton battlecruisers currently building. Interestingly all 7 are being built in German shipyards so probably don't want to pick a fight with Germany for the next 2 and a half years. Picking up the Quality (1) 16 inch gun in March 1918 was a nice bonus. Armor and tonnage is the same as new California BB minus a half-inch in the main belt. In addition to the slightly thicker belt, California has nine 16 inch guns in three triple turrets with a speed of 21 knots. So the seven knots in speed I gained only cost me two 16 inch rifles and .5 inches of belt armor. Not a bad trade. If the quad turret doesn't give me a lot of problems. Little worried about that since I don't know if I'll even research Improved Quad turrets or not. Of course my detractors are killing me in the press for building such expensively protected and armed oil tankers...
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Mar 13, 2018 21:17:54 GMT -6
The only thing I dislike about the 3x4 'loophole' BC is that darned quad turret is out of action half the time (it seems), and it bugs me losing that firepower. Still, my first class were so well protected it seemed unfair to match them against BCs.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 13, 2018 21:33:17 GMT -6
Out of curiosity, why triple-A and quad-B rather than quad-A and triple-B? Aesthetics? Roleplaying finer lines with the smallest turret furthest forward? The only thing I dislike about the 3x4 'loophole' BC is that darned quad turret is out of action half the time (it seems), and it bugs me losing that firepower. Still, my first class were so well protected it seemed unfair to match them against BCs. Could always go for a 2x3 instead of a 4&3; you'll usually have improved triple turrets, or be about to get it, by the time you'd be building these anyways.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 14, 2018 7:31:22 GMT -6
Out of curiosity, why triple-A and quad-B rather than quad-A and triple-B? Aesthetics? Roleplaying finer lines with the smallest turret furthest forward? Yes, that's it. Finer lines required of a battlecruiser plus the need for sufficient torpedo protection standoff distance from the turret/magazines. Easier to do with the larger turret in the wider amidships position. Related to that, I've been playing a house rule this game since late 1906 that all of my new American capital ships have to carry the best torpedo protection available. It's intended to represent an institutional response to the trauma of losing the armored cruiser USS Frederick which was sunk when a torpedo struck and the flash reached the magazine causing a catastrophic explosion and the loss of all hands. (It happened off screen as a part of the support forces so there was actually some shock value there for me.) It hasn't really affected play yet because I would have put TPS II on all my capital ships once I had it anyway but I think I'm up to researching TPS III right now which I wouldn't normally use so then the house rule will come into play. Of course, in real life having the heavier turret one level up would make the stability calculations and design more difficult but at those prices I'm expecting there would be rooms full of smart people with slide rules to figure all of that stuff out. Thinking back on it I probably should have added bulges to all of my pre-dreadnoughts as well to be in keeping with the max torpedo protection philosophy but it never even occurred to me until now. Oh well, that's a small missed opportunity. Once I had dreadnoughts I relegated the pre-dreads to invasion support anyway. Good thing too because the way the French DD's were flinging fish around at my dreadnoughts they would have caused holy terror and huge losses among the pre-dreads. Anyway, yeah, it was purely a role playing decision not one related to gameplay or design rules. [Edit - Oh well, in for a penny, in for a pound. I decided to redesign my new California-class battleship to an all-forward layout as well. It allowed .5 inches greater armor on the turret faces, 1 inch better conning tower protection and upping the secondary guns to a full 24 from 16. I decided I like the visual look of the ABQ layout better than the ABL. (ABC had the turrets overlap for some reason.)
|
|