To BB or not 2 BB that is the question....

[krankey]

Hey all, just fine tuning my knowledge (Or lack of it) about the game environment.

I'm sure the speed restrictions increase as the years do, but in essence a BC is a BB that decides to put more emphasis on speed thereby foregoing some armour ?  I find myself accidentally creating BC's almost all of the time, I find the 'break-point for speed settings during design. At some point cost per +1 knot jumps from 300 ton to 500 ton, at that point I crank it back 1 knot and that's my settled speed. For some reason I can have more turrets early game while developing centre line turrets on a BC than I can a BB so its so easy to fall into the BC line for this reason too.



So aside from the obvious 'easier to damage' 'harder to catch', does the BC/BB have any different effect within the game mechanics. Do both blockade, will a BC catch a different set of battle scenarios etc. 


Your thoughts ?

[splatterdemalion]

Cruiser-types are available for more scenarios, so will appear more often - so I tend to think effective battlecruisers are a better investment. I haven’t observed a significantly different effect on blockade etc.

[director]

If you check out the battle settings, you will find that they can be set up for DDs only, CLs, BCs or all ships (not sure about CAs since I'm not looking at it, just going on memory).
In addition, the game has a set of canned setups it mixes in with the ones in the national battle settings - convoy, fleet battle, and so forth. All ships count toward blockade unless they are on raiding status - I think MS on ASW/CP use count but usually that's drowned out by capital ships. BBs and BCs count 5 points (I think), B's 4, CAs 3, CLs 2 and DDs 1 (check that, I'm running off memory).

Game-wise, the break-point I hit most often is that a BC can only have up to 12" of armor on the belt. Go to 12.5" and the game converts it to a BB (and no, fast BBs are not used the same way as BCs, more's the pity).

A BC can be designed in three ways. I usually define it as, "A capital ship armed with large caliber guns capable of a speed 3 knots or more faster than the battle line, sacrificing guns or gun caliber, armor or tonnage for speed." In other words, you can make a BC with speed, heavy gun power and armor by making it very big, or sacrifice armor (or number or size of guns) to make it fast and not-quite-so-large. A fast battleship is basically a big ship that uses weight-saving advances (like oil firing) to avoid serious sacrifices in speed, armor or gun power.

Some examples:

1) British WW1-era BCs (and the US Lexington and Alaska designs) tend to have good speed and heavy gun-power at the expense of armor
2) German BCs (including Scharnhorst) tend to have good speed and solid protection at the expense of one fewer turret or by dropping the current gun caliber size
3) Post-war British BCs of the G3 design and the post-treaty fast battleships of all nations combine speed, heavy gun-power and good armor while being quite large (cramming all that into 35,000 tons or so required advanced welding, high-pressure steam engines, efficient armor and a host of other improvements over WW1 technology)

Used separately from the main fleet, BCs were excellent 'cruiser killers'. The proposed use of BCs in fleet actions was two-fold. They were supposed to use their speed and power to break through the enemy screen (presumably CLs and DDs) in order to get accurate scouting information on the enemy battle line composition, course and speed. It was thought that their high speed would enable them to avoid significant numbers of hits until they could get info and withdraw. Second, they were to form an 'advanced wing' or a van column ahead of the battle line, to use their high speed to turn across the enemy's line, crossing his T or forcing him to change course to avoid it. This latter manuever was never put into practice by battlecruisers; at Jutland they were too damaged (or reduced in numbers) to attempt it and neither fleet commander had good enough intelligence on where friendly and enemy forces were. It was last seen in a fleet action at Tsushima, where Togo used his superior speed to control the engagement with the Russians - he had Bs and used CAs in his battle line, but no BCs. This goes a long way to explain later Japanese insistence on superior speed. (The Japanese T was crossed at Surigao Strait, but by geographic constraints, not superior speed).

So, that's the answer I would give you - others may differ.

[ddg]

Each ship type gives a certain number of points to blockade and totals are compared in Build Area sea zones to determine whether a blockade is in place. As I recall, the point values are as follows: BB 12, BC 10, B 8, CA 5, CL 3, DD 1. So BBs are 20% better than BCs at blockading on a per-ship basis.

[theexecuter]

Apr 16, 2018 8:12:33 GMT -6 ddg said:

Each ship type gives a certain number of points to blockade and totals are compared in Build Area sea zones to determine whether a blockade is in place. As I recall, the point values are as follows: BB 12, BC 10, B 8, CA 5, CL 3, DD 1. So BBs are 20% better than BCs at blockading on a per-ship basis.

...and making DDs the most efficient use of tonnage (and hence cost) for blockade units...



Though I consider this an exploit.

[bcoopactual]

Apr 16, 2018 8:08:00 GMT -6 director said:

If you check out the battle settings, you will find that they can be set up for DDs only, CLs, BCs or all ships (not sure about CAs since I'm not looking at it, just going on memory).
In addition, the game has a set of canned setups it mixes in with the ones in the national battle settings - convoy, fleet battle, and so forth. All ships count toward blockade unless they are on raiding status - I think MS on ASW/CP use count but usually that's drowned out by capital ships. BBs and BCs count 5 points (I think), B's 4, CAs 3, CLs 2 and DDs 1 (check that, I'm running off memory).

Game-wise, the break-point I hit most often is that a BC can only have up to 12" of armor on the belt. Go to 12.5" and the game converts it to a BB (and no, fast BBs are not used the same way as BCs, more's the pity).

A BC can be designed in three ways. I usually define it as, "A capital ship armed with large caliber guns capable of a speed 3 knots or more faster than the battle line, sacrificing guns or gun caliber, armor or tonnage for speed." In other words, you can make a BC with speed, heavy gun power and armor by making it very big, or sacrifice armor (or number or size of guns) to make it fast and not-quite-so-large. A fast battleship is basically a big ship that uses weight-saving advances (like oil firing) to avoid serious sacrifices in speed, armor or gun power.

Some examples:

1) British WW1-era BCs (and the US Lexington and Alaska designs) tend to have good speed and heavy gun-power at the expense of armor
2) German BCs (including Scharnhorst) tend to have good speed and solid protection at the expense of one fewer turret or by dropping the current gun caliber size
3) Post-war British BCs of the G3 design and the post-treaty fast battleships of all nations combine speed, heavy gun-power and good armor while being quite large (cramming all that into 35,000 tons or so required advanced welding, high-pressure steam engines, efficient armor and a host of other improvements over WW1 technology)

Used separately from the main fleet, BCs were excellent 'cruiser killers'. The proposed use of BCs in fleet actions was two-fold. They were supposed to use their speed and power to break through the enemy screen (presumably CLs and DDs) in order to get accurate scouting information on the enemy battle line composition, course and speed. It was thought that their high speed would enable them to avoid significant numbers of hits until they could get info and withdraw. Second, they were to form an 'advanced wing' or a van column ahead of the battle line, to use their high speed to turn across the enemy's line, crossing his T or forcing him to change course to avoid it. This latter manuever was never put into practice by battlecruisers; at Jutland they were too damaged (or reduced in numbers) to attempt it and neither fleet commander had good enough intelligence on where friendly and enemy forces were. It was last seen in a fleet action at Tsushima, where Togo used his superior speed to control the engagement with the Russians - he had Bs and used CAs in his battle line, but no BCs. This goes a long way to explain later Japanese insistence on superior speed. (The Japanese T was crossed at Surigao Strait, but by geographic constraints, not superior speed).

So, that's the answer I would give you - others may differ.

That's an excellent breakdown although I think ddg's numbers are correct as far as blockade points.  And don't forget to multiply the total strength by the nation's blockade modifier.

The slider between a fast BB and a BC moves but I believe the 12 inch Belt/31 knot go/no-go kicks in January 1916 based on the Yorktown-class (3 x 2 turrets 16 inch guns, 16 inch belt AoN, 27 knots) I finalized in September 1915 of my current game and not being able to use the Yorktown as the basis of a related design the next year.  My next class of BC had to be a two turret (seven guns total), all-forward design to keep the 16 inches of belt armor.  

splatterdemalion is right that the game tends to use battlecruisers more so they can be a better investment. Just have to be careful not to take on full grown BB's with them unless your battlecruisers have the armor to stand toe-to-toe. I usually start out at 2/1 ratio of BB to BC but the AI almost always build more battlecruisers than battleships so towards the end of the game I'm building 1/1 or even 2/3 BB to BC.

krankey, I would point out that if you are constantly increasing the speed of your battleships one or two knots every generation you are probably wasting tonnage.  Since the game almost always uses battleships in three and four ship divisions and mixes them between available classes you end up being limited by the slowest one in the division.  So the tonnage you put towards increasing the speed of the others in the division ends up being a bit of dead weight unless the slower ships get damaged and detached.  I tend to follow American historical practice and go with a standard speed for all of my dreadnoughts.  Whatever the first class ends up.  I design for 21 knots usually but sometimes it ends up faster because it exceeded its design speed.  In that case follow ships would be designed for 22 knots to keep up.   

Just a thought, you certainly don't have to follow that practice.  You can always get around the game's limitations by deploying the different speed battleships in different ocean areas (i.e. keep the slower ones in home waters while forward deploying the faster ones in your expeditionary fleet) but you risk not being able to concentrate your battleline and being destroyed piecemeal.    

[krankey]

Wow!. Thanks peeps, some great info there

My games normally end before I have built many BB's I still have rebuilt B's in 1925 if I survive that long. I haven't yet carried on after 1925. I'm wondering if that is the time period the debate gets to be more technical.

My starter fleet is generally 20 knots for B, 21 CA, 22 CL and some light CL at 23/24 solely for raiding purposes. I up the speed after machinery refits normally but only on larger CL's and above (Assuming any survive) Everything else either gets a few mines and placed in CP or distant sea's tonnage buffers.

I muse at the order in which turrets become available, favouring BC over BB for when new improvements filter through. This in itself prevents me from fitting BB's as the BC can have more advanced turret layouts. Again perhaps this is because I tend to complete my campaign at the 1925 point. Wouldn't slapping new turrets onto the heavier hull of a BB be easier than a CA or BC ? (Just throwing that out there)

Anyway - Have a starter British game just being set up for the evening as Im actually at home tonight and the wifes on a night shift. (Aaah gone are the days of 12 pints down the local. I'm settling for a couple of bottles of Hob-Goblin and Fisher's Navy ! )

[Airy W]

Apr 16, 2018 9:35:50 GMT -6 bcoopactual said:

Since the game almost always uses battleships in three and four ship divisions and mixes them between available classes you end up being limited by the slowest one in the division.  So the tonnage you put towards increasing the speed of the others in the division ends up being a bit of dead weight unless the slower ships get damaged and detached.  I tend to follow American historical practice and go with a standard speed for all of my dreadnoughts.  Whatever the first class ends up.  I design for 21 knots usually but sometimes it ends up faster because it exceeded its design speed.  In that case follow ships would be designed for 22 knots to keep up.   

This is a problem but it's not hopeless. For one thing the game will try to place ships of the same class in the same squadron so you might just have two squadrons of two different speeds. However if they are in the same squadron you can change the settings to "turn together" and you will be able to increase the speed of the flagship past the speed of it's slower sisters. Eventually they will be far enough behind that they will switch to independent operation.

I think the american standard speed notions apply to a school of decisive battle that rarely happens in RTW. Even in grand fleet engagements I find that the speed with which the flagships can jockey for position is quite important.

Apr 16, 2018 10:21:19 GMT -6 krankey said:

My starter fleet is generally 20 knots for B, 21 CA, 22 CL and some light CL at 23/24 solely for raiding purposes. I up the speed after machinery refits normally but only on larger CL's and above (Assuming any survive) Everything else either gets a few mines and placed in CP or distant sea's tonnage buffers.

Be aware that machinery refits are extremely expensive and that machinery costs per ton of machinery are higher for larger ships then smaller ship. There is also a big jump in cost per ton of machinery between destroyers and cruisers. And while you might think oil boilers will give a revolutionary impact, the effects of oil actually trickle in over several technologies. In the amount of time that it takes you to research enough machinery improvement to make a machinery refit meaningful, the armor might be obsolete and you can't refit armor. This is less of a concern with destroyers, which have no armor, and light cruisers which have little armor. However it can make refits for large ships excessively expensive. I will say that if you have shown budget discipline and avoided making your ships speed fiends, the armor costs might be much lower. Most of the players on these forums tend to go with high speeds (perhaps excessively high speeds) so you might have a different cost benefit.

[krankey]

For refits I tend to hit the button to see what tonnage is freed up first, then review what I can do with the spare tonnage. If the effect is negligible then I'll do a soft rebuild, the only must haves where possible are additional tubes on DD & CL and better fire control. I won't be paying 1 million for a single tube upgrade on a DD however Got to be sensible. Half a brand new DD is better than a single extra torpedo on an old one. (IMHO)

I may do a story-line post at some point for a game and drop my builds in. Will be interesting to see the comments and what I can learn from the more experienced players.

[rimbecano]

Apr 16, 2018 13:10:40 GMT -6 Airy W said:

I think the american standard speed notions apply to a school of decisive battle that rarely happens in RTW. Even in grand fleet engagements I find that the speed with which the flagships can jockey for position is quite important.

Well, part of it is that you need the speed to be able to fight decisive battles. If you don't have a good speed margin to disengage with, you have to be more cautious about the way a situation is developing and start disengaging earlier if you think you are at a disadvantage, making the number of battles you can fight to a decision in your favor smaller. If you don't have the speed margin to keep up with a fleeing enemy, it is more likely that the damage you inflict will cause the enemy to cut his losses and escape. And if you don't have the speed margin to choose the range, then you can find yourself fighting in the enemy's immunity zone instead of yours.

All three of these make speed vital to fighting decisive battles.

[bcoopactual]

Apr 16, 2018 14:28:48 GMT -6 krankey said:

For refits I tend to hit the button to see what tonnage is freed up first, then review what I can do with the spare tonnage. If the effect is negligible then I'll do a soft rebuild, the only must haves where possible are additional tubes on DD & CL and better fire control. I won't be paying 1 million for a single tube upgrade on a DD however Got to be sensible. Half a brand new DD is better than a single extra torpedo on an old one. (IMHO)

I may do a story-line post at some point for a game and drop my builds in. Will be interesting to see the comments and what I can learn from the more experienced players.

To add to what Airy W was talking about, one of my biggest concerns with switching from coal to oil fired with CL's is a large part of the ship's protection in the Protected Cruiser armor configuration comes from the coal bunkers themselves.  You will frequently see messages during fights that the shell exploded in the coal bunker which means that the bunker absorbed much of the damage.  (Frequently might be too strong a word but I would definitely say it is not uncommon to see that happen during a fight)  If you take a coal-fired protected cruiser and switch it to oil-fired you are taking away a significant part of the defense of the ship with no way to replace it.  In fact cruisers are the last class of ships I switch from coal to oil-fired because it takes one or two additional levels of Machinery/Armor/Hull techs past the actual oil-firing tech to give the tonnage to switch to a decent vertical armor belt without significantly increasing the size and expense of the cruisers themselves.      

[director]

My personal preference is NOT to rebuild machinery or guns. In my current Germany game I've done that exactly once - a really splendid 8x10" armored cruiser with lots of spare tonnage got refitted with oil-fired boilers and gained 3 knots. Those two ships cost a painful amount of money (I think around 40 million apiece spread over 10 turns, which is an insane amount for 3 knots) so since then I've concentrated on building good new ships instead. Their near-sisters are still chugging along on coal, and being only 1 knot slower, they can stay that way.

Sorry about messing up the blockade points - I do have a bad habit of offering what I've mis-remembered.

Like bcoopactual, I tend to set certain base speeds (19 knots for pre-dreadnoughts, 20-21 for semi-dreadnoughts, 22 for dreadnoughts) and stick with them. But in my last USA game, having lots of money, I started building 27-knot 'fast battleship' types. This did mean a clear disconnect between the 22-knot and 27-knot divisions, but by the 1940s I had scrapped the older, slower ships and could still field 18 of the 52,000-ton, 27-knot type. Of course, playing as the US can be a little boring because no-one really wants to get into a war with you post-1925... but my one encounter with the Royal Navy went - let us say - very well. (Picture the final moments of 'Doctor Strangelove' but with the mushroom clouds representing British capital ships...)

Anyway, I'd advise you to keep speeds uniform until or unless you have the tonnage and machinery (oil and turbines) to move up a bit. Whatever formation speed you want to set, stick to it - it makes battle management simpler.

[aeson]

As with director and bcoopactual, I tend to set a speed for the battle line and stick with it (typically 19 knots for predreadnoughts and semidreadnoughts and 23 knots for dreadnoughts and superdreadnoughts, though my first class or two of dreadnoughts are often slower than the 'standard' speed and my last class or two of predreadnoughts or semidreadnoughts are sometimes faster; occasionally, I'll eventually transition to fast battleships designed for 25-27 knots). I will say, however, that if you know that you're going to want to increase the speed of your battle line in the future but aren't yet at a point where it's practical to design a ship for the speed you desire, then it can make sense to incrementally build up to the desired speed.

Let's say that the highest practically-attainable speed for my battleships is currently 20 knots, that the highest practically-attainable speed for my battleships increases by one knot every four years, that I build four battleships in four years, and that I know that I eventually want a battle line speed of 25 knots. I could build 20kn battleships until it becomes practical for me to build 25kn battleships, in which case I'll have about twenty 20kn battleships by the time I lay down my first 25kn battleship and will have to remove all of them from service before my battle line's speed can increase at all. Alternatively, I could increase the speed of my battleships every four years and have four 20kn battleships, four 21kn battleships, four 22kn battleships, four 23kn battleships, and four 24kn battleships by the time it becomes practical for me to lay down my first 25kn battleship. I will still need to remove all of the older ships from service before the battle line's speed increases to 25 knots, but now my battle line's speed increases by one knot with every four ships I remove from service.

It doesn't always make sense to do something like this - cost is a factor, obviously, but there's also the question of whether or not you'll be able to ease the transition enough to make things worthwhile; two or three transitional ships at the tail end of a run of a dozen or so won't really help that much, and is a small enough number of ships that it might make sense to take them out of service at the same time as the last of the slower vessels are removed from service. It's also not really worth doing if you only start thinking about it after the speed you actually want for your battle line becomes a practically-attainable speed for new battleships; building transitional vessels at that point really only delays the time when your battle line's speed increases to the desired speed.

[rimbecano]

My strategy tends to be to put my oldest and slowest ships on colonial stations, my newest ships in enemy home waters, and whatever number of ships in the middle are necessary to prevent a blockade in my own home waters. I tend to operate a BC heavy / BC only battle line, and move at continuous flank speed in daytime combat, without much regard for formation cohesion. Whoever can't keep up gets left behind.

[garrisonchisholm]

Taking one for the team (at lest I'm telling myself that's what I did), I started a game with the slowest possible pre-dreadnoughts possible, 9 knots. The object was to attempt to have an entire navy of ships which could NOT go too fast when they've taken a torpedo. Briiliant notion I thought! Well, guess what a WHOLE LINE of 9-knot pDNs is good for.

NOT avoiding torpedoes. I scrapped those suckers faster than you can say "Garrison screws up all the time."