|
Post by aeson on Aug 12, 2021 7:33:21 GMT -6
Hi all, I reopened this old thread for a specific question: The first triple and quadruple turrets are very likely to jam in battle, until a later tech corrects this. My question: Does this later tech "heal" the ships with triples/quadruples already built? Or does it only affect ships build later on? Or can you "heal" the problem with an updaten of the guns? Thanks for sharing if you know something about this, I haven´t found anything. Developing the Improved Triple / Quadruple Turrets technologies will lessen the reliability issues of the early triple and quad turrets, but you need to give the ship a refit in order for the technology to take effect. You don't need to do anything expensive - a blank refit will do - but you do need to refit the ship. Also, given that this is only tangentially related to the thread subject and given the age of the thread it would probably have been better to create a new thread for your question.
|
|
cvl
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by cvl on Aug 12, 2021 8:25:48 GMT -6
Double in A Double in port forward and starboard forward wings Double in port aft and starboard aft wings Double in Y
12x12" usually, with an 8 gun broadside.
It's commonly seen on very early dreads in RTW.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Aug 14, 2021 14:45:53 GMT -6
My favorite turret arrangement is 2x3 and 2x2 in ABXY config. Duals superimposed over triples fore and aft. Just looks nice to me and it gives a solid 10 guns. I don't like just ABY cuz it's unequal firepower so I try to go ABXY whenever possible. Either all duals, all triples, the aforementioned mix of both, or all quads. Or quads with triples superimposed over them. This is for cruisers as well, full quad setup is much more reasonable on a large light cruiser than a dreadnought.
|
|
|
Post by arminpfano on Aug 15, 2021 6:37:56 GMT -6
I came to the solution to build "hunter-BCs", as soon as possible, with 2x3 and later 2x4 all forwards, 15" or 16". A squadron directly heading towards an enemy flotilla up to point blank range can kill fast and easy, before getting damaged too much (I guess the aiming is harder for the enemy due to the smaller front silhouette). Torps are the only real danger. The two turrets should be armored thickly to avoid destruction by hits.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Aug 15, 2021 18:44:39 GMT -6
Am I the only one that really dislikes all forward? I almost never use it, weight savings be damned. You don't save a ton, doesn't seem worth it to me.
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Aug 15, 2021 18:58:50 GMT -6
Am I the only one that really dislikes all forward? I almost never use it, weight savings be damned. You don't save a ton, doesn't seem worth it to me. It's useful for BBs that tend to fight in a regular battle line at range due to superior fire control that is available by the time all-forward is typically researched. All you really lose is the ability to fire while maneuvering violently, which only really affects BCs, and then only in certain smaller scenarios. So the benefit is not huge, but neither are the downsides. I've never built an all-forward CA (there's hardly a point given their role in most fleets).
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Aug 15, 2021 21:11:04 GMT -6
Am I the only one that really dislikes all forward? I almost never use it, weight savings be damned. You don't save a ton, doesn't seem worth it to me. It's useful for BBs that tend to fight in a regular battle line at range due to superior fire control that is available by the time all-forward is typically researched. All you really lose is the ability to fire while maneuvering violently, which only really affects BCs, and then only in certain smaller scenarios. So the benefit is not huge, but neither are the downsides. I've never built an all-forward CA (there's hardly a point given their role in most fleets). I tend to use it for BCs and my CL raiders. Yes, I still use surface raiders that late in the game, due to how effective they are plus they never sink neutral liners.
|
|
|
Post by arminpfano on Aug 16, 2021 13:37:18 GMT -6
Am I the only one that really dislikes all forward? I almost never use it, weight savings be damned. You don't save a ton, doesn't seem worth it to me. Its the best thing you can do - if you play extra aggressively, and if your goal is not just to win, but to annihilate the enemy capitals.
I guess in RL this wouldn´t have worked, but in RTW2 it is easy to win battles like this. The weight saving factor is not the relative one, compared to 3x3 or so, but the skipping of the rear turret, because you don´t need it at all.
In many cases the enemy will turn and try to run. Then you mostly have one rear turret against your 6 or 8 barrels, if you just follow and shorten the distance. Again: Works well with the AI, maybe not with people on the other side.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Aug 16, 2021 14:11:53 GMT -6
Am I the only one that really dislikes all forward? I almost never use it, weight savings be damned. You don't save a ton, doesn't seem worth it to me. Its the best thing you can do - if you play extra aggressively, and if your goal is not just to win, but to annihilate the enemy capitals.
I guess in RL this wouldn´t have worked, but in RTW2 it is easy to win battles like this. The weight saving factor is not the relative one, compared to 3x3 or so, but the skipping of the rear turret, because you don´t need it at all.
In many cases the enemy will turn and try to run. Then you mostly have one rear turret against your 6 or 8 barrels, if you just follow and shorten the distance. Again: Works well with the AI, maybe not with people on the other side.
I have to agree with arminpfano. In RL all forward isn't very good, but or what ever reason, all forward seems to significantly decrease the time it takes to kill an enemy capital ship...
Just chasing down an enemy doesn't answer the reason why for me.
I guess I might be mistaken here, but in both an all forward and ABY setup won't you only have two turrets that can fire immediately forward - the most forward and the superfiring?
Put another way, I'm wondering if the all forward arrangements have a better / more uniform arch of fire that I'm missing (or isn't well represented) in the ship designer / firing arch display. I don't think this is the case as my non-forward firing turret usually has noticeably more rounds than the other guns... Does all forward get an accuracy bonus modifier; like a reduction in the negative modifiers like ship vibration and smoke interference (from own ship) or is there a positive tech level modifier applied?
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Aug 16, 2021 14:18:47 GMT -6
I mean even when chasing you can usually get rear turrets involved by moving off to one side. Not hard really I do it all the time. And really by the time you get the all forward configuration capitals tend to die fairly quickly anyways. 16 in guns HURT. Never had a problem chasing capitals down because I normally don't have to. The only time it really happens is when air power damages ships forcing them to peel off whilst I'm engaged and can't really chase
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Aug 17, 2021 15:02:01 GMT -6
I've never built an all-forward CA (there's hardly a point given their role in most fleets). The Panzerschiff clause is so extremely (IMO way too) restrictive at 12kton I only can get any viable "Panzerschiff" CA when using the all-forward savings. A 11inch gunned CA can affect even fleet battles well above its weight, let alone the potential in CA vs. CA.
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Aug 17, 2021 15:27:20 GMT -6
I've never built an all-forward CA (there's hardly a point given their role in most fleets). The Panzerschiff clause is so extremely (IMO way too) restrictive at 12kton I only can get any viable "Panzerschiff" CA when using the all-forward savings. A 11inch gunned CA can affect even fleet battles well above its weight, let alone the potential in CA vs. CA. Interesting because I vastly prefer 8" CAs after 1915 or so. You can fit 10-12 centerline guns onto one for a reasonable price, and they still pen every CA at mid range with rare exceptions. My CA doctrine prohibits their use against BCs or in the main battle line because I feel that no post-WWI CA should have that role by definition of the ship type. Such 8" CAs end up being workhorses because the current "matchmaker" is biased against heavier ships for menial missions, so it's either CA or DD in its absence.
|
|
|
Post by itrefel on Aug 19, 2021 8:59:05 GMT -6
My favorite turret arrangement is 2x3 and 2x2 in ABXY config. Duals superimposed over triples fore and aft. Just looks nice to me and it gives a solid 10 guns. I don't like just ABY cuz it's unequal firepower so I try to go ABXY whenever possible. Either all duals, all triples, the aforementioned mix of both, or all quads. Or quads with triples superimposed over them. This is for cruisers as well, full quad setup is much more reasonable on a large light cruiser than a dreadnought. I often use 10 guns ABXY, but with the two forwards as triples and the two rear as doubles. Rear turrets usually have more ammo, meaning they've been firing less, so figured I'd get more use out of the guns this way. Looks fine, doesn't weigh much different, and effective.
|
|
|
Post by eaterofsuns on Aug 19, 2021 9:16:42 GMT -6
My favorite turret arrangement is 2x3 and 2x2 in ABXY config. Duals superimposed over triples fore and aft. Just looks nice to me and it gives a solid 10 guns. I don't like just ABY cuz it's unequal firepower so I try to go ABXY whenever possible. Either all duals, all triples, the aforementioned mix of both, or all quads. Or quads with triples superimposed over them. This is for cruisers as well, full quad setup is much more reasonable on a large light cruiser than a dreadnought. I often use 10 guns ABXY, but with the two forwards as triples and the two rear as doubles. Rear turrets usually have more ammo, meaning they've been firing less, so figured I'd get more use out of the guns this way. Looks fine, doesn't weigh much different, and effective. That is pretty clever. For myself I usually am a sucker for big calibers, so I usually end up trying to minimize turret weight in order to cram a decent amount of guns on a ship. Once past the very early game where center-line turret numbers are a limiting factor I tend to go 8 guns in ABXY if I have decently large guns relative to displacement, and 10 gun ABXY if my highest quality guns are smaller. I have also experimented with things like BCs using an 8 gun ABY scheme with only 2 guns in the super firing B turret when guns are big.
It also really depends on the nation you are playing, when I am doing a smaller nation I am often drawn to more aggressive weight saving measures to maximize the advantages I can wring out of my ships. In a Russia game I ended up with quality +1 15" guns and unintentionally made an almost perfect copy of the Richelieu for much the same reasons that the French built her in the first place.
In the very late game if I still end up building BCs or fast BBs they tend to end up with 4x2 all forward to minimize tonnage as I am usually shrinking belt armor by that point in favor of stupidly thick decks. As an added bonus all forward leaves nice places to emplace SAMs later and takes up less deck space, so the secondary battery can be maximized for AAA firepower.
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 19, 2021 14:57:34 GMT -6
I regularly build fairly large CAs with three triple turrets forward - either 8" or 10", depending - and add two catapults in the 3-4 position dead aft, a seaplane hangar and 6-8 seaplanes for scouting.
Once missiles come in I can scrap the catapults and aircraft and add SAM launchers aft for about the same weight.
|
|