|
|
Post by director on Sept 24, 2018 20:28:48 GMT -6
hardlec - I appreciate that you believe BCs make good commerce raiders. I do caution you that the total points they can earn in their lifetime from sinking merchant ships won't equal what you could lose in one turn by losing one. In general I concur with the others here: I use CLs in the early game, AMCs at all times and medium submarines when available if I need to go commerce raiding. If I put my BCs on raiding status it is to catch enemy cruisers out a-raiding... It is fun to imagine the look on enemy admirals' faces when their 'killer' CA gets trumped by a BC.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 24, 2018 23:37:34 GMT -6
What game size are you playing where you can build 30 AMCs as soon as war breaks out? You are not allowed to build AMCs in peacetime or keep them between wars. More but cheaper AMCs does seem like a good idea, but I rarely get to build more than a dozen. I stop at 1925, the design game end. It's only after 1918 that I can put battleship armor on a battlecruiser. I almost never see 14 inch guns, much less 16 inch guns in a game. My scientists seem to be fixated on developing 7 inch and 9 inch guns. I will try a battlecruiser with thicker armor, it's only a game. Could you show us some of your designs? This is Russian battlecruiser designed in 6/1908 in UK, commissioned 6/1908. She was a little extreme without extended belt however point is there was no other capital ship (including battleships) which can fight her in 1:1 combat. It took several years for AI that have some capital ship that could be dangerous for that her. Combination of 15" guns, 2.5" deck armor, 13" belt and turret armor with speed of 28 knots was something that is difficult to counter if this ship is able to hold distance not to be fired secondary guns upon her. The costs are bellow 100 M and with her speed and 15" guns she can be very valuable at least till 1920.  |
|
|
|
Post by gimlet on Sept 26, 2018 15:51:54 GMT -6
I almost always reserve/mothball to the max. I keep a "flag squadron" active - best B/BB, best BC/CA, best CL, best 4-6 DD minimum, partly for RP partly to maximize options for events ("send a battleship"). I usually play a small country like AH and it really helps to keep up the building to let me get rid of the very oldest ships. And I do like to keep mothballed a pretty hefty number of MS/DD for CP,I like to have 4x the minimum number.
I can't think of a time when reactivating everything was impossible with my budget. Yeah most of the time I have to pause at least a few ships in the build queue for a while, but oh well that's war. I'm moderately good at mobilizing at least the most important ships 3-6 months before war, so I think that mitigates some of the quality problems. If I mistime, or there's a sudden war, oh well, I just remind myself not to get too frisky until most of them are back up a bit. And a lot of the time the AI reserve/mothballs too, so I'm not necessarily way behind.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 26, 2018 21:54:38 GMT -6
I can't think of a time when reactivating everything was impossible with my budget. Yeah most of the time I have to pause at least a few ships in the build queue for a while, but oh well that's war. The fact that you had to give something up in order to afford to reactivate your ships proves that reactivating your ships wasn't within your budget; if you had been able to afford it, you wouldn't have gone looking for places to cut expenses in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Sept 30, 2018 9:56:40 GMT -6
The AMC shown above is illegal. It is to light to carry 6 inch guns. 2600 tons to carry 6 inch guns.
I started putting more armor on my BCs, and leaving them AF instead of R. Now they stay in port.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 30, 2018 13:00:11 GMT -6
The AMC shown above is illegal. It is to light to carry 6 inch guns. 2600 tons to carry 6 inch guns. The AMC design JagdFlanker posted is completely legal. It just suffers a penalty to accuracy and rate of fire because the guns it carries are a bit too heavy for it, but for an AMC commerce raider accuracy and rate of fire penalties are basically irrelevant; it's extremely unlikely to defeat a real warship if it gets intercepted, and abstract commerce raiding doesn't care how accurate or fast your gunnery is. Here's the design screen and design report for essentially the same AMC. Note the lack of errors in the design report - this is a legal design. |
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Sept 30, 2018 15:58:14 GMT -6
Doesn't work that way for me. Maybe I have a defective copy of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 30, 2018 16:39:52 GMT -6
What version of the game are you using, and could you post a screenshot of the design and design report menus so that we can see if there's something else you're doing that might make the design illegal?
|
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Sept 30, 2018 17:00:52 GMT -6
Okay:
control-printscreen should take a screenshot. On my version of the game half the time I do this the program crashes. About 1 time in 6 the screen actually saves.
I downloaded my copy about a month ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 1, 2018 11:39:16 GMT -6
The AMC shown above is illegal. It is to light to carry 6 inch guns. 2600 tons to carry 6 inch guns. The AMC design JagdFlanker posted is completely legal. It just suffers a penalty to accuracy and rate of fire because the guns it carries are a bit too heavy for it, but for an AMC commerce raider accuracy and rate of fire penalties are basically irrelevant; it's extremely unlikely to defeat a real warship if it gets intercepted, and abstract commerce raiding doesn't care how accurate or fast your gunnery is.
Here's the design screen and design report for essentially the same AMC. Note the lack of errors in the design report - this is a legal design. In the first decade in the game I used sometimes 6x6" guns and 6 torpedo tubes with speed of 21 knots. It is a little more expensive AMC however speed usually saves the ship. And in case of close engagements the torpedo tubes are the main defence of the ship. Their 6" guns could be strong but usually can help only against small 4" guns cruisers as AMC are not armored. |
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Oct 21, 2018 22:12:06 GMT -6
This is Russian battlecruiser designed in 6/1908 in UK, commissioned 6/1908. She was a little extreme without extended belt however point is there was no other capital ship (including battleships) which can fight her in 1:1 combat. It took several years for AI that have some capital ship that could be dangerous for that her. Combination of 15" guns, 2.5" deck armor, 13" belt and turret armor with speed of 28 knots was something that is difficult to counter if this ship is able to hold distance not to be fired secondary guns upon her. The costs are bellow 100 M and with her speed and 15" guns she can be very valuable at least till 1920. Hey Dorn, I wanted to ask you about this design. Firstly, could you clear up when it was designed and when it was commissioned? Secondly, if it was commissioned in 1908, I would be worried about inadequate volume of fire; if this ship is firing near her maximum range, presumably somewhere in the vicinity of 20,000 yards, I'd fear that she wouldn't be able to score enough hits to be effective. What's your take on this issue? |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 22, 2018 0:45:30 GMT -6
Secondly, if it was commissioned in 1908, I would be worried about inadequate volume of fire; if this ship is firing near her maximum range, presumably somewhere in the vicinity of 20,000 yards, I'd fear that she wouldn't be able to score enough hits to be effective. What's your take on this issue? I cannot speak for dorn, but my experience is that half a dozen heavy guns is usually adequate if the guns are reasonably heavy for the time that the ship is laid down, and half a dozen 15" guns is enough all the way to 1950 (preferably of better quality, but 15"/Q- will do, and I do not believe that Izmail would be worth refitting with better heavy guns), though I'd be concerned about the armor if that ship remained in service much beyond the 1920s, because most of the heavy ships armed with guns light enough for its armor to resist will be withdrawn from service in the '20s or early '30s. That said, I had a similar ship in the Chin China AAR game I did a while back and only removed it from service in 1941; if I recall correctly, I never modernized it beyond improving fire control and keeping it from getting the (O) status. Also had a 4x2x15" that I rebuilt as a 3x2x15" with better-quality guns and heavier turret armor in the 1930s that game.
Also, a 1908 ship - whether design year or commissioning year - with a 13" belt and 2.5" deck looks to me like it's designed for mid-range engagements into the late-1910s or maybe early-1920s. 2.5" deck armor isn't enough to exclude most heavy shells at long range from about the mid-1910s onwards, or perhaps earlier, and a 13" belt isn't adequate to exclude most heavy shells at short range from about the same time, but 13" belt and 2.5" deck are both adequate at moderate ranges into the mid- to late-1910s against most heavy guns, and possibly into the 1920s against 13" or maybe 14" and lighter heavy guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Oct 22, 2018 3:00:26 GMT -6
I cannot speak for dorn, but my experience is that half a dozen heavy guns is usually adequate if the guns are reasonably heavy for the time that the ship is laid down, and half a dozen 15" guns is enough all the way to 1950 (preferably of better quality, but 15"/Q- will do, and I do not believe that Izmail would be worth refitting with better heavy guns), though I'd be concerned about the armor if that ship remained in service much beyond the 1920s, because most of the heavy ships armed with guns light enough for its armor to resist will be withdrawn from service in the '20s or early '30s. That said, I had a similar ship in the Chin China AAR game I did a while back and only removed it from service in 1941; if I recall correctly, I never modernized it beyond improving fire control and keeping it from getting the (O) status. Also had a 4x2x15" that I rebuilt as a 3x2x15" with better-quality guns and heavier turret armor in the 1930s that game.
Also, a 1908 ship - whether design year or commissioning year - with a 13" belt and 2.5" deck looks to me like it's designed for mid-range engagements into the late-1910s or maybe early-1920s. 2.5" deck armor isn't enough to exclude most heavy shells at long range from about the mid-1910s onwards, or perhaps earlier, and a 13" belt isn't adequate to exclude most heavy shells at short range from about the same time, but 13" belt and 2.5" deck are both adequate at moderate ranges into the mid- to late-1910s against most heavy guns, and possibly into the 1920s against 13" or maybe 14" and lighter heavy guns.
If the range advantage of the 15 inch guns is not used, then it cannot be denied that much of the comparative advantage of larger, heavier guns over smaller, lighter guns is lost. That doesn't mean of course that every ship should be designed to fight at its maximum range, of course, but in a broadside engagement, especially with no BE armour and a sloped deck configuration, I'd be sceptical of this thing's ability to stand up to a contemporary dreadnought, since the claim Dorn made was that there's nothing that can stand up to it. Even if we make the assumption that this ship was completed and not laid down in 1908, the disparity in armament between this ship and vessels of the next generation - ships completed by 1910 /1911 - is likely to be very considerable. For the record, were the BCs you're talking about meant to stand in the line of battle? |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 22, 2018 3:14:16 GMT -6
Secondly, if it was commissioned in 1908, I would be worried about inadequate volume of fire; if this ship is firing near her maximum range, presumably somewhere in the vicinity of 20,000 yards, I'd fear that she wouldn't be able to score enough hits to be effective. What's your take on this issue? I cannot speak for dorn, but my experience is that half a dozen heavy guns is usually adequate if the guns are reasonably heavy for the time that the ship is laid down, and half a dozen 15" guns is enough all the way to 1950 (preferably of better quality, but 15"/Q- will do, and I do not believe that Izmail would be worth refitting with better heavy guns), though I'd be concerned about the armor if that ship remained in service much beyond the 1920s, because most of the heavy ships armed with guns light enough for its armor to resist will be withdrawn from service in the '20s or early '30s. That said, I had a similar ship in the Chin China AAR game I did a while back and only removed it from service in 1941; if I recall correctly, I never modernized it beyond improving fire control and keeping it from getting the (O) status. Also had a 4x2x15" that I rebuilt as a 3x2x15" with better-quality guns and heavier turret armor in the 1930s that game.
Also, a 1908 ship - whether design year or commissioning year - with a 13" belt and 2.5" deck looks to me like it's designed for mid-range engagements into the late-1910s or maybe early-1920s. 2.5" deck armor isn't enough to exclude most heavy shells at long range from about the mid-1910s onwards, or perhaps earlier, and a 13" belt isn't adequate to exclude most heavy shells at short range from about the same time, but 13" belt and 2.5" deck are both adequate at moderate ranges into the mid- to late-1910s against most heavy guns, and possibly into the 1920s against 13" or maybe 14" and lighter heavy guns.
You are quite right. Some mistakes about dates from my side. She was designed in 6/1908 (I have never seen 15" guns in 1906) and commissioned in 8/1908. She was designed for fight in moderate ranges, it does not mean out of range of secondary guns but out of range of efficiency of these guns. The second important point is who you are fighting. As Russia I was fighting Japan, Germany and France and there are usually not nations leading heavy guns development. She was not designed for long range gunnery duel as her 6 barrels would have difficult to sink capital ship at that range. She were the only battlecruiser survived till 1925 (3 built of different classes) and even in war 1922 she fight well. She got only fire control refits and later secondary guns refit as I cannot see cost efficiency for battlecruiser refits. I do not usually use heavy deck armor as deck armor hits in long range are not common and on opposite you need protection even in bad weather. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 22, 2018 16:31:43 GMT -6
If the range advantage of the 15 inch guns is not used, then it cannot be denied that much of the comparative advantage of larger, heavier guns over smaller, lighter guns is lost. I disagree. The practical range advantage of the heavier guns - especially lower-quality heavier guns - is often marginal to nonexistent; the gun range and penetration table put together by bcoopactual indicates that the maximum range of a 15"/Q- is roughly equal to that of a 13"/Q0 or 12"/Q1, and anyways maximum effective range is more often limited by fire control or weather than by the maximum range of the gun; it's pretty unlikely that a ship whose fire control system is only Central Firing will be able to engage very effectively from much beyond ten or twelve thousand yards even if the guns it carries can theoretically reach out to twenty thousand yards. The big advantages of the heavier guns lie in armor penetration and damage per hit; six 15" guns offer roughly the same weight of broadside as 7(.4) 14" guns, 9(.2) 13" guns, 11(.7) 12" guns, or 15(.2) 11" guns, and 15"/Q- guns have similar-to-superior armor penetration compared to 13"/Q0 and 14"/Q0 guns at short- to mid-range and superior armor penetration to 12"/Q1 or worse/lighter guns at any range - and the armor penetration of even low-quality heavier guns more or less only becomes better relative to that of the lighter guns as the game goes on.
The heavier guns also have a tonnage-efficiency advantage at equal weight-of-broadside; with a given thickness of armor in each area, 3x2x15" ABY is usually slightly lighter than 322x14" ABY, much lighter than 3x3x13" ABY, and considerably lighter than 3x4x12" ABY or 4434x11" ABVY, let alone less efficient arrangements which might have to be used early on, especially with the lighter guns. (Yes, there are more efficient configurations available for the 13" and 14" guns, but the configurations were chosen to be similarly-efficient to 3x2x15"; 4&3x14" AB/AY is definitely more efficient than 3x2x15" ABY, while 414x13" ABY and 423x13" ABY or similar are probably more efficient than 3x2x15" ABY.)
Why? 13" belt and 2.5" deck is perhaps a bit on the heavy side for a ship laid down in 1908, so a contemporary dreadnought battleship probably has comparable armor, and if the battleship's using a greater number of lighter guns then the battleship probably also has a similarly-heavy broadside and worse armor penetration out to mid-range. As to the lack of BE/DE armor, I'm not terribly fond of it myself, but on the other hand the tonnage cost of adding enough BE/DE armor to exclude anything heavier than perhaps a 7" shell at mid-range is likely to be prohibitive, unless maybe you're working with a narrow belt configuration.
Capital ships completed by 1910-1911 are not particularly likely to have more than perhaps ten 13" guns, and if they have very many heavier guns they're likely to have rather thin armor. Additionally, they're frequently built in an early dreadnought configuration - most often something similar to Dreadnought (5x2 AFGWY) or Neptune (5x2 AFKXY), but sometimes also Nassau (6x2 AFGJKY) - and relatively rarely have the fourth or fifth centerline turrets, both superfiring turrets (X/V will usually have shown up in time for the ships commissioning in 1910-1911, but B will somewhat often only show up starting with ships commissioned in the mid-1910s), or triple turrets. I wouldn't be too concerned about a 3x2x15" being out-gunned by ships commissioning in 1910-1911.
Also, I personally would not be overly concerned about the number of guns; six 15" guns and armor heavy enough to exclude the enemy's 14", 15", or 16" shells is in my experience better than ten or twelve 15" guns and too little armor to take a hit.
They were meant to stand in the line of battle when they were laid down, and both remained part of the line of battle until the older of the two was withdrawn from service; the other remained in the line of battle until the end of the game.
|
|
