|
Post by alsadius on May 31, 2019 10:58:00 GMT -6
I present my, uh, "solution" to only having 3 centreline turrets and not wanting to build a dreadnought with less than an 8 gun broadside. This isn't even the first time I've built ships like this, either. Surprised you're not going for a Dreadnought-style config there - twin fore, two twins fore-wing, aft centreline, and aft.
|
|
|
Post by cosmicspear on May 31, 2019 11:00:36 GMT -6
I present my, uh, "solution" to only having 3 centreline turrets and not wanting to build a dreadnought with less than an 8 gun broadside. This isn't even the first time I've built ships like this, either. Surprised you're not going for a Dreadnought-style config there - twin fore, two twins fore-wing, aft centreline, and aft. I didn't have wing turrets when I designed it or I would have.
|
|
|
Post by decourcy2 on May 31, 2019 13:51:46 GMT -6
My god Cosmicspear, that thing has 7 !!! deep wells! Not to mention combat problems I can not even imagine crewing this thing. The vibration would kill you. Good ship, 11/10, would sail again.
|
|
|
Post by arminpfano on May 31, 2019 14:00:09 GMT -6
I present my, uh, "solution" to only having 3 centreline turrets and not wanting to build a dreadnought with less than an 8 gun broadside. This isn't even the first time I've built ships like this, either. You should play France or Russia for that, they constructed some strange ships like that.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 31, 2019 23:29:09 GMT -6
A bit of a strange family of heavy cruisers I built in the 1920s and early 1930s: The Giuseppe Garibaldi class is shown in its 1934 refit configuration, which upgraded the main battery fire control to use Advanced Directors, added a pair of AA directors, replaced the original 8x1x4" DP secondary battery with the current 4x2x4" DP secondary battery, added the current six medium AA guns, reduced the original light AA armament from 18 guns to the current 10, and removed a pair of submerged torpedo tubes.
The Varese class is shown in its 1936 refit configuration, which upgraded the main battery fire control system to Advanced Directors, added a pair of AA directors, replaced the original 8x1x4" DP secondary battery with the current 4x2x4" DP secondary battery, and removed a pair of submerged torpedo tubes. Unlike the Giuseppe Garibaldi class, the Varese class retained its original light and medium AA armament after the refit. The Varese class has the distinction of being the only class in this family of ships to have seen combat so far, with Amalfi and Lombardia having encountered the 37,500-ton 5x2x16" 28kn French battleship Trident off Corsica shortly after daybreak on the 19th of September, 1936. Unsurprisingly, the meeting went somewhat poorly for my two 6,000-ton heavy cruisers; Amalfi was sunk and Lombardia heavily damaged, though bombers from my airbases and a pair of light carriers managed to put three bombs (two 600lb and one 1000lb) and two torpedoes into the battleship - likely saving Lombardia but failing to sink the battleship.
The two ships of the Umbria class were the first ships in the Italian Navy to be laid down with twin 4" DP mounts and AA directors, though both the twin 4" DP mount and AA directors would first enter Italian service on a refitted battleship, and are also the first Italian cruisers with above-water torpedo tubes.
The four-ship Liguria class was originally intended to be a part of the Umbria class, but an improved (Q1) 7" gun was developed before the ships were laid down and so the Umbria design was reworked into the nearly-identical Liguria class to incorporate it. Unfortunately, the class failed to make its design speed of 27 knots, so despite being the newest heavy cruisers of the Italian Navy they're also the slowest.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 31, 2019 23:36:34 GMT -6
aesonI like that design, but speed is quite strange. In 20s I think that CL and CA need to be at least 29 knots, 30 knots is better and 31 knots is enough till 1955. What was your point behind such slow ships?
|
|
|
Post by evil4zerggin on Jun 1, 2019 0:25:50 GMT -6
A brief period before the advent of threatening aircraft and a lack of +1 cruiser guns except for 8" resulted in this crime against good taste, marine engineering, and elementary geometry. To this day I'm still wondering how the engineers found any space for the engines. (N.b. I was playing on super-low research speed, 30% IIRC.)
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 1, 2019 7:51:06 GMT -6
aeson I like that design, but speed is quite strange. In 20s I think that CL and CA need to be at least 29 knots, 30 knots is better and 31 knots is enough till 1955. What was your point behind such slow ships? Because I decided I didn't want to make them bigger than 6,000 tons and elected to experiment with sacrificing a bit of speed for heavier armor and greater firepower. Personally, I think if I had either 9" or 10" Q0s I'd have gone with a smaller number of either of them than with that many 8"/Q1 triples, at least on a cruiser that large.
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Jun 1, 2019 18:23:15 GMT -6
I present my, uh, "solution" to only having 3 centreline turrets and not wanting to build a dreadnought with less than an 8 gun broadside. This isn't even the first time I've built ships like this, either. Great, now all I can think of is the "Badnoughts" from RTW1
|
|
wolfe
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by wolfe on Jun 2, 2019 0:25:37 GMT -6
Why choose between more or bigger guns on your CAs? Not only do they shred other CAs and CLs, at night, the class has had a favorable exchange rate with battleships and battlecruisers.
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Jun 2, 2019 1:51:14 GMT -6
Why choose between more or bigger guns on your CAs? Not only do they shred other CAs and CLs, at night, the class has had a favorable exchange rate with battleships and battlecruisers.
Frankly, I was going for something similar in my last game. At one point I simply realized that I was not going to have my battlecruisers as fast and well armoured as I would have liked them to be, so I decided I would go with much cheaper, but still heavily armed and decently armoured CAs.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 2, 2019 2:38:21 GMT -6
I have sometimes built in RTW1 this type of design. I have not tried it yet in RTW2 but I expect this would be deadly during daytime.
Screenshot below is with 1920 starting technology.
Advantage is that this ship does not cost much more than large heavy cruiser. During daytime she have quite advantage and during nightime I used light cruisers against heavy cruisers as they are usually faster and have higher rate of fire.
This ship could even support heavy units as long as is not under heavy fire.
|
|