You can never have too much armour.

[garrisonchisholm]

Certainly not at those ranges, no. I think one thing to consider here is the "freak" hit, as I believe it is possible for guns that are facing an immunity zone to actually penetrate. I think the chance is extremely small, but I know I have had games where I deployed nothing larger than 13" guns and I was still able to get late-game victories (even if they were more costly).

I'll keep an eye out for such occurrences and try to get documentation.

[aeson]

Dec 21, 2018 16:08:23 GMT -6 dorn said:

I do not think that 1-2" of armor would make any difference.

Designing a ship with heavy belt and deck armor in the late stages of the game isn't intended to protect your ships against relative lightweights like 12" and 13" guns, though it'll more than manage it under many circumstances, including all of the ones where 13" belt and 2.5" deck such as you have on your Roma would be adequate. It's intended to protect your ship against 15" and 16" guns in moderate- to long-range daytime fair-weather engagements, where that 13" belt and 2.5" deck armor on your Roma would most likely fail. Now, if you don't expect to be facing late-game 15" or 16" guns with any particular frequency, then there is no particular reason why you should design your armor to protect against them, but that's dependent upon the conditions of the game that you're playing, and by the mid- to late-1910s it starts to become likely that all the new capital ships laid down by the top three or four powers in the game will be armed with 15" or 16" guns; towards the end of the 1920s even the little powers are fairly likely to be doing it, and the capital ships armed with lighter guns are disappearing from the larger powers' fleets.

In the savestate - which, granted, is 1950 postgame - in which my example designs were created, there are a grand total of 152 capital ships in service with fleets other than my own (31 British, 27 Italian, 25 German, 25 Japanese, 23 French, 21 Russian), not counting ships currently under construction. Of those 152 capital ships, 0 capital ships are armed with 12" or lighter main battery guns (0.0%), 1 capital ship is armed with 13" guns (0.7%), 4 capital ships are armed with 14" guns (2.6%), 25 capital ships are armed with 15" guns (16.4%), and 122 capital ships are armed with 16" guns (80.3%). Which guns do you think that I should use as the model against which I design my ships' armor?

[cuirasspolisher]

I've noticed that designs that emphasize armor have shorter useful lives than designs that don't. Consider a 1905 battlecruiser with 10'' belt armor. In the ship's early career, the armor is effective against 12'' guns at medium range, but by 1915 or so it provides little more protection against the 14'' and 15'' guns modern battlecruisers mount than a 6'' belt would. The ship's deck armor will also probably be inadequate for mid-game combat ranges. By contrast, the extra speed or armament bought by a 6'' belt would remain useful for the duration of the ship's life, even in second-line duties. However, I usually go for heavy armor schemes, since I would rather a ship be maximally effective when it's new than marginally more effective later in its life.

[aeson]

Dec 21, 2018 19:05:53 GMT -6 cuirasspolisher said:

I've noticed that designs that emphasize armor have shorter useful lives than designs that don't. Consider a 1905 battlecruiser with 10'' belt armor. In the ship's early career, the armor is effective against 12'' guns at medium range, but by 1915 or so it provides little more protection against the 14'' and 15'' guns modern battlecruisers mount than a 6'' belt would. The ship's deck armor will also probably be inadequate for mid-game combat ranges. By contrast, the extra speed or armament bought by a 6'' belt would remain useful for the duration of the ship's life, even in second-line duties. However, I usually go for heavy armor schemes, since I would rather a ship be maximally effective when it's new than marginally more effective later in its life.

A 1905 battlecruiser with a 6" belt probably has inadequate armor from the day it enters service, and maybe from the day it's laid down; even 12"/Q-1 guns are fairly likely to be capable of penetrating 6" of belt armor at or near maximum practical engagement ranges in 1905. 9 or 10 inches of belt armor will at least give it the possibility of having a zone of immunity against 12" guns somewhere in the 12,000-20,000 yard range band into the mid-1910s or maybe a bit later, which means that its armor should still be adequate against its near-contemporaries, even if a ship armed with modern heavy guns would blow it out of the water.

Also, I personally don't find speed to be particularly useful for ensuring a ship's longevity; in fact, as long as your ship won't be too much slower than newer ships, I'd say that between, armor, armament, and speed, speed is the least effective in keeping a ship useful, especially early on. A ship with particularly heavy armor for its age can usually still take a hit and a ship with a particularly heavy punch for its age can still deliver a sting ten years after commissioning, but the fastest ship in the game cannot get over the horizon before a ship armed with 15" guns can start shooting at it after perhaps the mid-1910s. Speed is also probably the single most costly thing you can give a ship, and is probably the area where advances in technology give the greatest advantage to new ships.

[generalvikus]

Dec 21, 2018 20:10:24 GMT -6 aeson said:

Dec 21, 2018 19:05:53 GMT -6 cuirasspolisher said:

A 1905 battlecruiser with a 6" belt probably has inadequate armor from the day it enters service, and maybe from the day it's laid down; even 12"/Q-1 guns are fairly likely to be capable of penetrating 6" of belt armor at or near maximum practical engagement ranges in 1905. 9 or 10 inches of belt armor will at least give it the possibility of having a zone of immunity against 12" guns somewhere in the 12,000-20,000 yard range band into the mid-1910s or maybe a bit later, which means that its armor should still be adequate against its near-contemporaries, even if a ship armed with modern heavy guns would blow it out of the water.

Also, I personally don't find speed to be particularly useful for ensuring a ship's longevity; in fact, as long as your ship won't be too much slower than newer ships, I'd say that between, armor, armament, and speed, speed is the least effective in keeping a ship useful, especially early on. A ship with particularly heavy armor for its age can usually still take a hit and a ship with a particularly heavy punch for its age can still deliver a sting ten years after commissioning, but the fastest ship in the game cannot get over the horizon before a ship armed with 15" guns can start shooting at it after perhaps the mid-1910s. Speed is also probably the single most costly thing you can give a ship, and is probably the area where advances in technology give the greatest advantage to new ships.

I tend to agree that speed is the feature of a vessel which becomes outdated more quickly, since the technological frontiers are sharper (with the rapid increases in cost/weight beyond a certain point in any given time period) - and, of course, there is no use in almost outrunning an enemy vessel. When it comes to firepower, it's probably necessary to make a distinction between the value of more and heavier guns, since, all else being equal, a ship with heavier guns for its time of construction has better longevity, because the time at which it will not be able to penetrate its competitors at effective combat ranges is further in the future. 

As for the general question of future-proofing ships; I have always tried to keep my capital ships limited in size to relatively historical proportions for their time period, fairly close to their nearest competitors, if usually a little larger. I've never built a 30k ton dreadnought in 1905, or a 40k ton one in 1910. This is partly out of a desire for efficiency, but also partly out of a desire for campaigns to progress in a reasonably historical manner.

I'd be interested to hear what people think the considerations are regarding the efficiency of these super-capitals; what is the best time to build ships that are very large relative to their peers? Are there some time periods in which building super-ships is more viable than in others? How would you design a typical super-capital in various time periods? Do you think it is best to take the historical route of the IJN and make super-capitals when you have too small a budget to enjoy a quantitative advantage? Are battlecruisers perhaps better suited for the type than battleships, since the individual quality of a BC ought to be more decisive over its service lifetime than the individual quality of a BB operating in a battle line, wherein it is the total output of firepower and general survivability that counts? 

[aeson]

there is no use in almost outrunning an enemy vessel

I don't entirely agree. When you're running away, the enemy's rate of closure depends on the speed differential between your ship and theirs; making that speed differential as small as possible gives your ship the best chance it can have to reach port or be lost in darkness as visibility fails due to nightfall or foul weather before a superior opponent can kill it. Maximum daytime sighting range in the game is about five nautical miles (nmi), so if you spot something at that range and immediately turn tail, you have up to five hours before your opponent overhauls you if you're only one knot slower than they are, but not more than one hour before your opponent overhauls you if you're five knots slower than they are. That can make a big difference in your ship's ability to reach a port, coastal batteries, or a support force, or survive until the engagement is terminated by nightfall or the arrival of bad weather. Beyond the time taken to be overtaken, there's also the simple fact that a fast ship can steam farther in a given period of time than a slow ship - five hours can take you up to 135nmi away from where you started at 27 knots, but only 90nmi away at 18 knots. Of course, that's ignoring any speed loss due to damage (more likely later in the game as increasing gun range and improving fire control begin to make it more practical to score hits at extreme range while increasing use of heavier guns and improving AP and HE shell technology make individual hits more damaging, especially with a poorly-protected ship), mechanical failure (less likely later in the game, as machinery becomes more reliable), or crew fatigue (less likely later in the game as oil replaces coal), as well as the likelihood that you neither saw your opponent at the maximum possible sighting range nor turned tail as soon as you saw any sign of them.

I don't think it's as useful as being more able to take a hit or hit back effectively, but I wouldn't call being not quite fast enough to outrun a superior opponent useless.

what is the best time to build ships that are very large relative to their peers? Are there some time periods in which building super-ships is more viable than in others?

I would say that the 'best' time to lay down a 'super-ship' is when you can lay down a decent 'next-generation' ship in the period of the previous generation (e.g. superdreadnought in the dreadnought era), or at the start of a technological plateau. For example, say you can put together a 21kn 5x2x14" ABFKY superdreadnought battleship with 13" belt and 3" deck armor in 1908 - that's likely to be a pretty decent ship for most of the next decade, maybe two, so if building it isn't going to cost you an arm and a leg it's probably not that bad of an idea to build it. On the flip side, the tail end of a technological plateau - say, late predreadnought/semidreadnought period, or the tail end of the dreadnought period right before superdreadnoughts start coming out - is probably the worst time to come out with a 'super-ship.' Maybe you can lay down a superb semidreadnought in late 1904 ... but it's still a semidreadnought, and the age of the dreadnought is just over the horizon; it might even be beginning as you lay down your ships, or begun by the time they commission. It'll be almost as obsolete by 1910 or so as a less superb semidreadnought would have been.

Do you think it is best to take the historical route of the IJN and make super-capitals when you have too small a budget to enjoy a quantitative advantage? Are battlecruisers perhaps better suited for the type than battleships, since the individual quality of a BC ought to be more decisive over its service lifetime than the individual quality of a BB operating in a battle line, wherein it is the total output of firepower and general survivability that counts?

I'm ambivalent about whether battlecruisers would be better 'super-ships' than battleships under the constraints of game mechanics, at least later in the game. While battlecruisers show up to more engagements and are more likely to show up singly or in small numbers than battleships are, a 'super-ship' battlecruiser is likely to be incredibly expensive later in the game; from 1916 onwards, if you want a battlecruiser with more than 12" belt armor and at least eight guns or three main battery turrets, you have to design it for at least 31 knots. Even with all the technological advances in the game having been developed, giving a ship designed for 31 knots a decent level of armor protection and a main battery larger than the six or seven guns in two turrets that would allow you to stick with a lower design speed requires cutting a lot of corners:

All of these are legal, but the upper pair are considerably more expensive than the lower pair despite cutting a lot of corners that the lower pair don't cut, and they really aren't gaining all that much for the added cost. You could instead cut armor (and, possibly, speed) for a heavier main battery, but then you're just making an expensive glass cannon similar to the ships that the computer uses, and heavily-armored ships like these in my experience will pretty consistently beat the glass cannons that the computer uses, and even when they don't, well, at least it wasn't a $200 million ship.

[dorn]

Dec 21, 2018 18:30:31 GMT -6 aeson said:

Dec 21, 2018 16:08:23 GMT -6 dorn said:

I do not think that 1-2" of armor would make any difference.

Designing a ship with heavy belt and deck armor in the late stages of the game isn't intended to protect your ships against relative lightweights like 12" and 13" guns, though it'll more than manage it under many circumstances, including all of the ones where 13" belt and 2.5" deck such as you have on your Roma would be adequate. It's intended to protect your ship against 15" and 16" guns in moderate- to long-range daytime fair-weather engagements, where that 13" belt and 2.5" deck armor on your Roma would most likely fail. Now, if you don't expect to be facing late-game 15" or 16" guns with any particular frequency, then there is no particular reason why you should design your armor to protect against them, but that's dependent upon the conditions of the game that you're playing, and by the mid- to late-1910s it starts to become likely that all the new capital ships laid down by the top three or four powers in the game will be armed with 15" or 16" guns; towards the end of the 1920s even the little powers are fairly likely to be doing it, and the capital ships armed with lighter guns are disappearing from the larger powers' fleets.

In the savestate - which, granted, is 1950 postgame - in which my example designs were created, there are a grand total of 152 capital ships in service with fleets other than my own (31 British, 27 Italian, 25 German, 25 Japanese, 23 French, 21 Russian), not counting ships currently under construction. Of those 152 capital ships, 0 capital ships are armed with 12" or lighter main battery guns (0.0%), 1 capital ship is armed with 13" guns (0.7%), 4 capital ships are armed with 14" guns (2.6%), 25 capital ships are armed with 15" guns (16.4%), and 122 capital ships are armed with 16" guns (80.3%). Which guns do you think that I should use as the model against which I design my ships' armor?

I do not play after 1925 as game is not designed for it and it is going be off balance.

In 1925 there is still a lot of ships with lower caliber than 16".

My last game as UK, there were 77 capital ships at January 1926 (low number because of treaty which have effect that a lot of nations have only modern (1916 and after) capital ships). UK (me) 26, Germany 10, France 7, Russia 6, USA 19, Japan 6, Italy 3.

By caliber is % distrubution this (in parantheses without me - UK):

11": 5.2% (7.8 %)

12": 18.2% (11.8 %)

13": 19.5% (29.4%)

14": 40.3% (41.2%)

15": 6.5 % (9.8 %)

16": 10.4% (nothing)

So for UK, only less than 10 % of capital ships had higher caliber than 14". If you take whole, than only 17 % of capital ships had higher caliber than 14". So any ship armored against 14" guns is well armored.

[dorn]

Dec 22, 2018 0:42:50 GMT -6 generalvikus said:

Dec 21, 2018 20:10:24 GMT -6 aeson said:

A 1905 battlecruiser with a 6" belt probably has inadequate armor from the day it enters service, and maybe from the day it's laid down; even 12"/Q-1 guns are fairly likely to be capable of penetrating 6" of belt armor at or near maximum practical engagement ranges in 1905. 9 or 10 inches of belt armor will at least give it the possibility of having a zone of immunity against 12" guns somewhere in the 12,000-20,000 yard range band into the mid-1910s or maybe a bit later, which means that its armor should still be adequate against its near-contemporaries, even if a ship armed with modern heavy guns would blow it out of the water.

Also, I personally don't find speed to be particularly useful for ensuring a ship's longevity; in fact, as long as your ship won't be too much slower than newer ships, I'd say that between, armor, armament, and speed, speed is the least effective in keeping a ship useful, especially early on. A ship with particularly heavy armor for its age can usually still take a hit and a ship with a particularly heavy punch for its age can still deliver a sting ten years after commissioning, but the fastest ship in the game cannot get over the horizon before a ship armed with 15" guns can start shooting at it after perhaps the mid-1910s. Speed is also probably the single most costly thing you can give a ship, and is probably the area where advances in technology give the greatest advantage to new ships.

I tend to agree that speed is the feature of a vessel which becomes outdated more quickly, since the technological frontiers are sharper (with the rapid increases in cost/weight beyond a certain point in any given time period) - and, of course, there is no use in almost outrunning an enemy vessel. When it comes to firepower, it's probably necessary to make a distinction between the value of more and heavier guns, since, all else being equal, a ship with heavier guns for its time of construction has better longevity, because the time at which it will not be able to penetrate its competitors at effective combat ranges is further in the future. 

As for the general question of future-proofing ships; I have always tried to keep my capital ships limited in size to relatively historical proportions for their time period, fairly close to their nearest competitors, if usually a little larger. I've never built a 30k ton dreadnought in 1905, or a 40k ton one in 1910. This is partly out of a desire for efficiency, but also partly out of a desire for campaigns to progress in a reasonably historical manner.

I'd be interested to hear what people think the considerations are regarding the efficiency of these super-capitals; what is the best time to build ships that are very large relative to their peers? Are there some time periods in which building super-ships is more viable than in others? How would you design a typical super-capital in various time periods? Do you think it is best to take the historical route of the IJN and make super-capitals when you have too small a budget to enjoy a quantitative advantage? Are battlecruisers perhaps better suited for the type than battleships, since the individual quality of a BC ought to be more decisive over its service lifetime than the individual quality of a BB operating in a battle line, wherein it is the total output of firepower and general survivability that counts? 

Even in 20s I build sometimes quite small ships. I try as UK to simulate Rodney class, limit myself to 35.000 tons and I get a very usefull ship.

Guns: 3x3x16" as real Rodney, 4x3x4"

Armor: AoN, 16" belt, 4" deck, 16.5" turrets, 5" turrets top

TDS level 2

Speed: 23 knots

She costs only 124 M which is nice for her firepower and protection.

Issue with super-capital ships is numbers. When you are outnumbered, enemy will hit you much more often demolishing your structure, starting fires, demolishing unarmored part of ships, decreasing effectivity of your fighting capabilities and at the end you can find that your percentage of hits drops to much to quickly disabled enemy ships closing on you.

I have excelent 26.000 tons Russian battlecruiser with speed of 28 knots, launched in 1910 with 3x2x15" guns, 13" belt armor, 2.5" deck armor, 13" turret armor. She met in 1912 three enemy battlecruisers (type invincible with only 12" guns) and she was lucky that escapes as she was able to damage one of them but hit by hit tear appart. When she escape she had only half structure and flooding points left.

I try build special battleships - 24 knots, Gangut type with only 9" belt armor. 2 enemy most modern battlecruisers attack 3 of these ship sailing in line and were forced to disengage as total firepower of 36x12" guns was just to much. You do not need to penetrate, disabling enemy turrets is enough. After half of the enemy turrets are disabled, taking some water bow or aft, the power gap is even increased and even if some of enemy hits penetrate if it is not lucky hit it could not sink the ship. Capital ships are able to withstand a lot of penetrating hits.

[mobeer]

Dec 21, 2018 19:05:53 GMT -6 cuirasspolisher said:

I've noticed that designs that emphasize armor have shorter useful lives than designs that don't. Consider a 1905 battlecruiser with 10'' belt armor. In the ship's early career, the armor is effective against 12'' guns at medium range, but by 1915 or so it provides little more protection against the 14'' and 15'' guns modern battlecruisers mount than a 6'' belt would. The ship's deck armor will also probably be inadequate for mid-game combat ranges. By contrast, the extra speed or armament bought by a 6'' belt would remain useful for the duration of the ship's life, even in second-line duties. However, I usually go for heavy armor schemes, since I would rather a ship be maximally effective when it's new than marginally more effective later in its life.

6" armour is probably too little for a battlecruiser. Instead having 8" belt and 1.5" deck protects against everything < 8", as well as 8" and 9" at over 10,000 yards even as +1 guns start to become more common.

[garrisonchisholm]

Another thing to consider in the context of the game is how the game uses BCs. The game loves to deploy BCs in 3s, so I learned to build my BC classes in 3s and never have more than 3 per sea zone because the extras get used very infrequently. If it is a cruiser engagement my 3 BCs will be enough, and if I get a fleet engagement the BCs job is simply to find/herd/lure the enemy to the battleline.

As such, if you're only maintaining 6 BCs you can afford to splurge a bit. A truly excellent BC can wreak a lot of havoc on more traditional opponents.

[oldpop2000]

I want to remind everyone why higher speeds for dreadnought ships like battle-cruisers and battleships was deemed important. Because it gave you the power to choose the range at which you would fight and what tactics. The key was greater speed and heavier guns. It would allow you to decide about when and where to fight and allow you to chase a fleeing enemy. Now, the whole fleet cannot support this greater speed but if the wings could then they could effectively surround and attack an enemy.

How did this work out for the fleets of the early 20th century? Well, it depends on who you read, which military historian. The problems for the battle-cruisers was not necessarily the designers, who had no control over the type of ammunition, ammunition handling or the battle tactics. They were given a set of specifications for ships and they followed those specifications. They designed and built the ships that they were asked to build. It was up to the Admiralty to control the type of ammunition, how it was handled and how the ships were deployed and used. This happens all the time, in the military.

Sometimes, the officers in the fleet enter the picture and they tell the higher authorities what they want. The British naval officers preferred smaller guns with higher rates of fire. Eventually it was determined that the 12-inch guns had a rate-of-fire that was just as high as the 10-inch guns. Where else have we seen this situation where the fleet requests something and gets it. How about the Japanese A6M2 Model 21 Zero? The Japanese pilots specifically requested a certain maneuverability in their new aircraft and speed. The problem for the designer was that they did not have the technology to provide it without removing something that might be important. They removed any pilot armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. They enlarged the fuel tanks so that if a large bullet passed through the tanks, the hydrostatic pressure wave would expand the tank and snap the wing off. I have seen more gun camera videos of this occurring than I care to think of. Our pilots learned early, to aim at the wing roots where the tanks were located and boom, off came the wing. Along with this, they lightened the thickness of the wing panels so that the plane could not handle high G maneuvers. So what essentially happened is, that the Japanese pilots lost the very thing they wanted: high speed maneuverability.

Ships, like aircraft are systems. They have to be balanced. If you examine the weight the weight distribution of the QE class battleships as of 1912, armament provides about 10.7% of the weight, armor about 33%, machinery about 7.6%, hull and fittings about 38.9%, fuel, ammunition and stores about 9.8%. Now you can find this type of data anywhere to compare. As you can see, there are two places where you can play with, to gain some speed. Armor as we all know, and hull/fittings. Now, we can’t really change the hull and fittings without making substantial changes to the design. If we increase the engine power, that is going to be very difficult because based on your design of the hull, to get two more knots of speed is going to take an enormous of amount of extra power. That will require more boilers and turbines, increasing the weight. So, we left with armor. We all know this.
Now, we are in position in our design where we want more speed, and the only variable we can use to gain that extra speed is to reduce the weight of the armor. However, if we do that, what sort of risks are we incurring? Well it now depends on our battle tactics, the range of our guns and the speed of firing, along with the fire directors. Can we detect our enemy early, maneuver into the best firing position and then strike him quickly and accurately? Well, all the battle practice in the world cannot answer that question because your enemy always has a say in your plans. You simply go to war with what you brung, and hope that you got it right.

The final answer, in my considered opinion, is to design a balanced ship and change your tactics. Adapt, adapt, adapt. With your designs, which tactics work the best? Do I go charging toward my enemy and engage at short to medium ranges or do I stay away from him to reduce the torpedo risk and stand off and pound. You will not get the accuracy at a longer range, but you might not lose as many ships. There is no perfect solution, there never has been even with the development of fire control radar, the problem is still with us. It always will be.

Thanks for reading.

[director]

dorn - I think you raise a nice point. For me it is always about cost-effectiveness, though as a part of that I do try to build ships that can be effective in battle for twenty years or so.
Given almost unlimited money in the late-game, I think the US is fun to design for. Here are a few samples:

B Illinois 20,100 tons 4x12" 12x10" 12x4" 10"belt 2"deck 12"/2.5"turret 20 knots 1905
BB Oklahoma 38,500 tons 12x14" 24x5" 12"belt 4"deck 14"/4.5"turret 22 knots 1918
BB Utah 52,000 tons 12x16" 20x5" 14"belt 4.5"deck 15.5"/5.5"turret 27 knots 1935-ish

As you can see, belt and turret armor are usually related to main caliber size while speed is unexceptional. I liked the 'Utah' design so much I built 4 of the very similar prequel 'Ohio' class and 12 of the 'Utah' class. It would be interesting to set a 'house rule' on top displacement (maybe 38-40,000 tons); I've tried it but my willpower fails when I see those 48,000-ton AI ships hitting the water.

I have tried playing with a 'house rule' restricting my gun caliber to 14", and that worked just fine. What they lack in penetration they make up for in sheer storm of metal; by the late game BBs carrying 15 and 18 guns were ready to play. Even if few shells of mine don't penetrate the belt, deck or turrets, I can put the main armament out of action, wreck the bridge, superstructure and funnels, break the hull in the unarmored areas, and weaken the enemy to the point that my DDs can finish a wounded BB off.

Ship design is always a balance between protection, offensive power and speed; increase one and you must decrease the others (barring some technology like oil-fuel, the turbine or welding, which permit weight saved to be used elsewhere). I believe that a balanced design is usually the most capable ship for most situations... but if I must make compromises I will sacrifice a bit of speed for additional torpedo protection or increased firepower.

Armor simply cannot give thorough protection from enemy firepower in all situations; some shot will wreck the bridge or funnels, open up the lesser or unarmored ends, set fires... any of which may permit an enemy to close to effective range for penetration or for torpedo hits. I think armor is essential but not an absolute priority: the armor tonnage must be balanced against the requirements of speed and gunpower.

[rimbecano]

Well, reducing weight of armor also can be done by eliminating places that need to be armored. This is why I go for 3x2 AB designs: eliminating one turret does away with some weight, and shortening the citadel does away with some more.

[oldpop2000]

Dec 22, 2018 12:49:57 GMT -6 rimbecano said:

Well, reducing weight of armor also can be done by eliminating places that need to be armored. This is why I go for 3x2 AB designs: eliminating one turret does away with some weight, and shortening the citadel does away with some more.

Yes, there are numerous ways of reducing the weight of armor but that reduction comes with a reduction in the armor protection for the ship and fire power. As I have said, its a systemic issue. If I reduce the number of turrets I reduce the firepower of my ship. Can my tactics be adapted to account for this. In other words, an assessment has to be made that addresses this reduction in firepower. Reducing the size of the citadel has the same issue. You do not get something for nothing in the world of military technology and tactics.

[Havock]

Dec 22, 2018 12:49:57 GMT -6 rimbecano said:

Well, reducing weight of armor also can be done by eliminating places that need to be armored. This is why I go for 3x2 AB designs: eliminating one turret does away with some weight, and shortening the citadel does away with some more.

You can get the shortened citadel with a pyramid turret layout: ABL still gives you three turrets for more broadside throw-weight. I use it a lot for my Battlecruisers; especially of science boys are slow with getting me bigger boom-booms.