Fast BBs and the 12 inch belt limit

[generalvikus]

Here's a question for the devs / testing team: although RTW will allow fast BBs to operate in cruiser actions, will the 12 inch belt limit on BCs still be imposed? I never understood why this limit was imposed, since the G3's belt was designed with 14 inches of armour inclined at 18 degrees - so even more than 14 inches in RTW terms. If it's going to be retained in the next game, can somebody explain the logic behind it? 

[mycophobia]

If I am not misunderstanding I believe the new system will simply put BB that has sufficient speed into cruiser battle.

[dorn]

And as I understand it it means merging battleship and battlecruiser to fast battleship. The option to build battlecruiser remains but her role will be more in line of real history of Alaska class.

It seems as right solution to me.

[generalvikus]

Mar 7, 2019 12:37:37 GMT -6 dorn said:

And as I understand it it means merging battleship and battlecruiser to fast battleship. The option to build battlecruiser remains but her role will be more in line of real history of Alaska class.

It seems as right solution to me.

I can understand that line of thinking, although I feel that the issue with the current system is the arbitrary cutoff date of 1916 suddenly compromising BC design. It is not therefore a case of BCs being superseded by superior fast BBs, at they in turn had superseded armoured cruisers, but of BCs being suddenly and arbitrarily 'nerfed'.

Historically, as we all know, the BC was not immediately replaced by the BB; rather, a gradual merging of the two took place, with considerable overlap. The Queen Elizabeth is generally considered to be the first 'fast battleship' and it certainly should be considered as such by the game. HMS Hood, on the other hand, was considered to be a battlecruiser, despite having battleship - grade protection, as was the G3. Once the major navies came out the other end of the building holiday, the process of merger was complete, after which the battlecruiser diverged again in the form of the Alaska and its contemporaries. However, if the build holiday had not been enforced, we could expect to see a continuation of the gradual process which began with the Queen Elizabeth class. 

Is anybody willing to elaborate more on how the transition will be implemented in game? 

[rimbecano]

Mar 7, 2019 22:47:18 GMT -6 generalvikus said:

Once the major navies came out the other end of the building holiday, the process of merger was complete, after which the battlecruiser diverged again in the form of the Alaska and its contemporaries.

The Alaskas weren't really battlecruisers. The USN did not designate them as such, and post-WNT capital ships thoroughly outclassed them. The only reason they could ever be considered battlecruisers is that the Scharnhorsts were designated as capital ships and the Deutschlands were called "pocket battleships" by the British (the Alaskas were built as counters to these classes), and the fact that the WNT designated anything over 10kton a capital ship, but all three classes were simply very heavy cruisers by the standards of contemporary naval construction, unrestricted by treaty (and the Deutschlands were exceptionally slow cruisers at that, easy pickings for a post-treaty battleship, or even,  e.g, for Hood).

[yemo]

I consider it a bug, if an alternate history game tells me that at a certain point in time I can not build a certain ship anymore, because in real history some war happened at that time.
German BCs had comparatively high armour and the only reason it did not go above 12 inches is, that WW1 resulted in germany not being able/allowed to build ships anymore.
Same goes for the British, the only reason they did not build the G3 was, that a treaty happened at that time.

It just does not make any sense for an alternate history game to impose restrictions based on historical events, which simply do not happen in the game.

I understand that the AI needs ship classes. But there has to be a better way than such an arbitrary (from an in-game perspective) cut-off. Maybe base it on machinery weight in relation to total displacement ( eg start with 8% and adjust it as tech progresses). Or even go with speed only. But when playing britain or germany, I need to be able to build BCs consistent with my design philosophy based on in-game events, not historical wars or treaties.