|
Post by wknehring on Apr 29, 2019 3:23:52 GMT -6
My bread and butter-advice for the KuK-fleet:
CA/CL- these are your units to get VP (Victory Points). You chose your battles carefully in the early game- take any medium convoy battle, or cruiser action, deny any fleet battle or large battle with much stronger estimated forces. Play hit and run. So my advice is, build strong CA- my last initial CA (I played last week on 10% varied research and historical budget)was 2x2 10", 8x1 6", 12x1 3", 23 knots, 4,5" belt, 2" deck- built in GB. My CL were light and fast- only 6x1 6", 23 knots, 2" belt and turrets, 1,5" deck and turrettops, 3" conningtower- were about less than 5000ts small. All your initial cruisers should have 23 knots.
My initial Pre-Dreadnoughts only bring fleetpoints into the Mediterranian Sea- I had 4 in total (large fleet)- 2x 2x1 13"Qu-2 with 10800ts built in GB, 2x 2x2 11" with 11000ts built in home shipyards. Both with a strong light secondary armament (20-24 4"). Short range, low freeboard, 20 knots, 8" belt, 2" deck. Thats far enough- keep them as cheap as possible. Your task should be to have a larger fleetvalue than Italy and an equal one (as equal as possible)to France. The problem with the 13" Bs could be, that they won´t bring their armament into the fight, if they are way too slow (about 18 knots), because the Qu-2 means, that your range sucks. I had a session with 4 of 2x2 13" Bs and had no chance to deal with Italy. So a mix of 11" and 13" should be better.
My DDs had 2x3" and 4TT at 28 knots and I had 18 of them!
And this time I tested some shennanigans- I built 4 CL with 2x1 6", 4x1 4", 23 knots, 1,5" belt, 1" deck, long range and reliable engines as raiders- perfect! They diverted enemy cruiser-forces and brought some VP. I loved them!
That´s the short version.
But as beginner in RtW I would recommend not to start with the KuK fleet. Try your first steps with the US or maybe Germany. Your funds are good and you are technology leader, that gives you a small advantage.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 29, 2019 7:54:36 GMT -6
But as beginner in RtW I would recommend not to start with the KuK fleet. Try your first steps with the US or maybe Germany. Your funds are good and you are technology leader, that gives you a small advantage. I don't think that the US is a particularly good nation to learn the game on. It's an easy power to play due to its wealth and isolation, but that - in particular the isolation - also means that it lends itself to a rather different playstyle than pretty much any other power. Britain's the only power with both the fleet strength and the base capacity to sustain a blockade against the USA, France is the only other power with any base capacity at all in American home waters and is almost trivially easily expelled from the Caribbean, the US has no base capacity in any other power's home waters, and the only colonial overlap is in Southeast Asia, which is fairly awkward since it's remote for everyone except Japan and is inconvenient for the US to reinforce default pathing from the North American East Coast goes through Northern Europe and the Mediterranean until the opening of the Panama Canal in 1914 (sending ships to the Caribbean and thence to Southeast Asia is a little better since it's the same number of sea zone transitions as the European route, it's one fewer sea zone without US bases which helps prevent ships from being interned or scuttled en route, and it results in the ships going around Africa rather than through the build areas of five out of the USA's six potential enemies - and three of the four powers that you might be fighting if you're reinforcing the Southeast Asia squadron). As a result, blockade and large-scale battles are pretty heavily deemphasized while commerce raiding and trade protection are relatively more important, and the Southeast Asia squadron is kind of in the position of having to stand on its own by virtue of its isolation from the USA's build area - not too unusual for a colonial force, inasmuch as colonial forces usually aren't important enough to merit reinforcement in wartime, but also a bit unusual inasmuch as Southeast Asia can be a primary theater of operations for the US in wartime due to the presence of French, German, and Japanese colonies, the relatively significant base capacity in the region, and the lack of other more convenient theaters of operations with significant base capacity available to both sides.
Austria-Hungary and Germany are in my opinion better nations to learn the game on. They only really care about one sea zone (though Germany has some minor overseas commitments) so their fleets aren't too badly strained by colonial commitments, and they're not unusually isolated and are relatively comparable to their neighbors (though more so on Historical budget; Austria-Hungary is a bit weaker relative to its neighbors and Germany a bit stronger on Game budget) at the start of the game and have relatively strong economic growth improving their position as the game progresses so blockade, large-scale battle, cruiser action, trade protection, and commerce raiding all have roughly "normal" emphasis.
|
|
|
Post by thenewteddy on Apr 29, 2019 11:45:06 GMT -6
JAN 00 addendum. Dear Diary. It's Wednesday today. I know I usually write in you over the weekend, but, I did a few important things in the last week of January. First of all I scrapped the battleship under construction. I decided to call my counterpart in Germany to try to get a handle on things, and when he asked me how big our guns were on our battleships, he started to laugh at me! I'm going to show him what we are made of; but, maybe not this month. The good news is that this freed up enough money to start the training program I've been thinking about; as such, our navy is now training in gunnery! I've also decided to design some ships of a size I'm more familiar with. I asked the Admiralty to design such a ship which they've designated a minesweeper. They didn't much care for the name I gave the class; but I need to know what I'm building! We've compromised in that the first ship of each class can have a name in my style - letters and numbers to show the year and type - and each subsequent ship will have a more traditional name. I've ordered two of them built; the second will be called the Arciduchessa Sofia.
|
|
|
Post by thenewteddy on Apr 29, 2019 11:54:00 GMT -6
FEB 00Dear Diary. So many things to keep track of! Britain is apparently starting a new Battleship, as is Italy and the US. Russia is building a new light cruiser. Meanwhile Italy is building a new destroyer, Britain two, and France three! I've decided to draw out some of the notes that I get, to help me keep track of things. I've included a copy for nostalgia's for when I read back on this in the future. A sailor also explained today that some ships had rather cramped accommodations; I saw what he meant when he took me to his bunk. Apparently all our new Destroyers are of this design! I'll have to keep this in mind when designing new ships in the future. Along with that, our battleships seem to have a rather short range in general, as do some of our smaller Destroyers. In fact the Kigio class suffers from this as well! I've also learned how small our naval budget is compared to the other 6 nations with "big navies". Well 7 if you count Japan; but we are too far from them for them to matter. Italy is within reach, but France is far too beyond us to consider a conflict with them any time soon! I will be doing whatever I can to ensure France and Austria do not come into conflict; but in return will be looking to keep Italy to a reasonable size, and perhaps pick off some of their Islands in the Mediterranean.
|
|
|
Post by Tabac Iberez on Apr 30, 2019 11:48:50 GMT -6
Dear God, those battleships hurt me to see. If you're not maximizing gun caliber, you're not building a good battleship is a general baby steps rule.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Apr 30, 2019 16:08:04 GMT -6
Dear God, those battleships hurt me to see. If you're not maximizing gun caliber, you're not building a good battleship is a general baby steps rule. Although I agree with you about the Austria-Hungary starting battleships (not much you can do honestly if you're not designing your own ships) having weak guns, I would caution people to not necessarily follow this rule. Let's say you have 2 battleship caliber (11+ inches) guns, with one being 1 inch larger than the other but is of 1 less quality. The penetration and range values on the guns will be roughly the same, with the smaller gun weighing less and firing faster while the bigger gun does a bit more damage per hit. Generally the smaller gun is more worthwhile in this case. Although the smaller gun will be more efficient for it's weight compared to larger guns of lower quality, once the gun caliber increases by 2 inches (for every 1 drop in quality), the increased penetration makes the larger guns more appealing.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on May 1, 2019 16:42:40 GMT -6
I'll add an additional caviat to the above, which is that unless the gun quality spread is a full 2 (ie 1 to -1) it is almost always beneficial to take 14s over 13s due to the shell damage and gun range.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on May 1, 2019 22:16:49 GMT -6
I'll add an additional caviat to the above, which is that unless the gun quality spread is a full 2 (ie 1 to -1) it is almost always beneficial to take 14s over 13s due to the shell damage and gun range. Range still benefits the 13s with a 1 spread difference. Penetration is about the same. Damage probably benefits the 14s, but weight benefits the 13s. DPS per weight probably benefits the 13s, at least with the 1-0 difference
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 2, 2019 6:53:00 GMT -6
DPS per weight probably benefits the 13s, at least with the 1-0 difference Damage is, so far as I am aware, directly proportional to shell weight, and for a given weight of broadside a smaller number of heavier guns is usually lighter than a larger number of lighter guns, given the same absolute level of armor protection and similarly-efficient main battery configurations. The difference in rate of fire between 13" and 14" guns is probably marginal if extant, as well; historical weapons of approximately these calibers had similar rates of fire to one another (e.g. King George V's 14"/45 Mark VII is listed as having a rate of fire of about 2 rounds per minute and Dunkerque's 330mm/50 Mark I is listed as having a rate of fire of about 1.5 to 2 rounds per minute on the navweaps site), and 13" and 14" guns both have a value of 09 in Gundata.dat's ROF column.
14" shells are about 25% heavier than 13" shells, so eight 14" guns are approximately equivalent in damage potential to ten 13" guns, ignoring any differences in armor penetration, and 13" guns have about the same rate of fire as 14" guns, so an 8x14" configuration and a 10x13" configuration ought to have about the same theoretical maximum DPS. Let's compare weights: 4x2 and 3223 are, in my opinion, similarly-efficient main battery configurations, and the only differences between these two designs are the number and caliber of the main battery guns. The 13" design is considerably overweight while the 14" design is considerably underweight.
We can also see that the 14" design remains lighter than the 13" design when the turret armor is removed, though not to quite the same extent. Therefore, 8x14" is a more weight-efficient main battery than 10x13" on an equal weight-of-broadside / equal DPS basis, for a given absolute level of protection.
There are probably exceptions, but, in general, for a given weight of broadside and a given absolute level of protection, a smaller number of heavier guns is more weight-efficient than a larger number of lighter guns. More guns might provide some degree of insurance against loss of damage/DPS to some guns being out of action for one reason or another, but if all guns are equally likely to be out of action then it doesn't really make much difference - having more guns just means that proportionately more of them are likely to be out of action at any given time - and if reliability is sacrificed for weight efficiency or because of an inability to fit more guns otherwise (e.g. using early triple/quad turrets to increase gun count rather than additional single/twin turrets). Differences in rate of fire are not particularly likely to increase 'DPS' enough to make up for the difference in weight-of-broadside per ton, at least when comparing two similarly heavy large-caliber guns to one another.
(It's likely that this is also the case at the lighter end of the scale - 6" shells, for example, are roughly 70% heavier than 5" shells, and if Gundata.dat at least gives an accurate idea of relative rates of fire then 5" guns only fire about 5% faster than do 6" guns.)
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on May 2, 2019 6:53:38 GMT -6
Perhaps mathematically, but I have always found 14s to be a better choice, even if you have to go with less of them, than 13s if available. 14s just seem to have much better longevity.
Edit: I see there was a response already. I meant the post above the one above this one
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on May 2, 2019 7:26:00 GMT -6
I'd just like to bring up one more parameter to the excellent discussion - all this 'DPS' is theoretical and things start to matter once the shells actually fall true. As such, it would not be in vain to investigate the hit probability depending on the number of barrels for example while all else is constant; I imagine experimental results could go either way due to a number of factors (complexity and random factors of the game's models), having more guns "per volume" give a significant advantage on hit chance (or to put it that way: actual shell weight on target) or the opposite, nothing to reliably count on.
|
|
|
Post by thenewteddy on May 2, 2019 12:04:48 GMT -6
JAN 01Report From: Fleet Admiral To: Prime Minister CC: The Kaiser I've included the report as requested. This year has been a bit of a slow one for the navy as I've taken stock of the situation. There are a few things that I feel need to be done in the coming year. For this year I've only made two major changes; the first is to order larger docks be constructed, and this should be done in the coming spring. The next is to begin regular training which finally seems to be paying off. My plans for the coming year, to be carried over to any additional years as required, are as follows. 1 - Consider a redesign of our Destroyers; many of them either lack rear guns or have a centre line that is so crowded it is impacting operations. I am personally in favour of moving our torpedo launchers from the centre line to the wings, but am open to other suggestions. 2 - Start a design program for our new class of Battleships, which would use a new standard for gun size that better matches our rivals. 3 - Design a Light Cruiser that is optimized for Raiding; this likely would result in a vessel that is extremely thinly armoured, with destroyer sized guns, but with a range and speed that should allow it to evade any enemies who would dare to intercept her. 4 - Design a Heavy Cruiser, or, build more of current designs. 5 - Expand the fleet of Minesweepers. We currently have two, but they are proving useful in coastal spotting and have helped the coast guard; it may be useful to have one or two dozen in the event a war breaks out. If you have any questions or would like any information, please let me know, and I will reply prior to my next report.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 2, 2019 13:29:53 GMT -6
If you like our suggestion I suggest you include your save or include more information: - what have other nations operating in the Mediterranean - UK, France, Italy - what cruisers have another nations to serve as raiders or hunt your raiders
For that you can compare with your fleet, can see what you are lacking. Than you can have strategy and adapt your construction program.
Just note: You have quite a number of DD and with knoledge of their ineffectivity at this time, I do not thing spending funds on DD is not probably good thing.
|
|
|
Post by thenewteddy on May 5, 2019 23:31:17 GMT -6
If you like our suggestion I suggest you include your save or include more information: - what have other nations operating in the Mediterranean - UK, France, Italy - what cruisers have another nations to serve as raiders or hunt your raiders For that you can compare with your fleet, can see what you are lacking. Than you can have strategy and adapt your construction program. Just note: You have quite a number of DD and with knoledge of their ineffectivity at this time, I do not thing spending funds on DD is not probably good thing. I'm actually intentionally only giving limited information to everyone as part of my narrative. In terms of cruisers I'll check on that during my next turn and report on it; as for the balance in the Med; it is as follows: Also an apology for being to late with this reply; I managed to get myself caught up doing other things. Things should (hopefully) get back on schedule now.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 6, 2019 0:13:21 GMT -6
I understand your point, neverthless if you would like to discuss your construction program you need to get all information (save not needed) as information you provide is not complete and without evaluation of other nations fleets any advice is just guess.
I would suggest something similar which I did for my AAR on the first page.
There is need to asses foreign fleets, available fleet for the Mediterranean theatre, not only fleets that are actually in the Mediterranean. You can do it any way you would like however there is need ship profiles, fleet strength which is expected to operated in the Mediterranean in case of war.
|
|