|
|
Post by jorgencab on Jun 7, 2019 3:50:45 GMT -6
Is it viable to build protected cruiser in the early game the way they were built historically with no belt armour and with 2"-4" deck armour?
|
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 7, 2019 4:01:09 GMT -6
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. All CL in the early game (1899 to roughly 1906) have to use the protected cruiser armor configuration (No vertical belt, only a sloped, armored deck) until you have researched the Light armored cruiser tech. If you are asking about a 1920 start then no, I wouldn't recommend it. One of the reasons why early protected cruisers were accepted by navies was that they were designed so that the coal bunkers provided some vertical protection. The coal bunker could absorb the explosion of a shell that struck the hull and you see that report frequently in the ship's log during a battle scenario. You no longer have that protection once you switch to oil fuel and oil fuel has a lot of advantages over coal. The French actually had an interwar cruiser design that switched to oil fuel only but left the coal bunkers of the previous design since it carried so little armor*. That kind of thing is not modeled in-game. [Edit - one thought just occurred to me. In the protected cruiser configuration, the "Belt" armor value in the design screen actually represents the sloping portion of the armored deck and the "Deck" armor value represents the flat part. So, I wouldn't recommend having a 0 value in the "belt" for a protected cruiser even if it was legal which I doubt. You might get away with 0 for the "Belt Extended" value but you become vulnerable to progressive flooding. For the 1920's era, I would use "Flat Deck on top of Belt" with the magazine box armor option to save weight.  * It actually occurred within one class. The Suffren-class. Suffren and Colbert had auxiliary coal-fired boilers with associated coal bunkers that were placed outboard for protection. Foch had the auxiliary boilers removed and the space used for fuel bunkerage but the coal bunkers were retained. The fourth unit, Dupleix was equipped with additional armor. I don't know if the coal bunkers were retained. Source - Leo Marriott, Treaty Cruisers: The World's First International Warship Building Competition |
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on Jun 7, 2019 5:29:59 GMT -6
I was sort of wondering about how the protected cruiser armour worked...so basically the "belt armour" represent the sloped portion of the armour so you can't just have a thick deck armour and no belt armour on them.
I also know that many nations built rather large protected cruisers... Up to about 14-15000t or so. I have not actually tried this yet but in real life they obviously did this and it worked. As I understand the armour on armoured cruisers was really heavy. Armoured cruisers was more or less discontinued at about 1905 and most served in until about the 1920.
So it is confirmed that the belt armour is the sloping part of the deck?
I will also do some test with larger protected cruisers and see what different results I get.
|
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 7, 2019 6:16:49 GMT -6
I was sort of wondering about how the protected cruiser armour worked...so basically the "belt armour" represent the sloped portion of the armour so you can't just have a thick deck armour and no belt armour on them. I also know that many nations built rather large protected cruisers... Up to about 14-15000t or so. I have not actually tried this yet but in real life they obviously did this and it worked. As I understand the armour on armoured cruisers was really heavy. Armoured cruisers was more or less discontinued at about 1905 and most served in until about the 1920. So it is confirmed that the belt armour is the sloping part of the deck? I will also do some test with larger protected cruisers and see what different results I get. Yes, the developers have confirmed that for the protected cruiser scheme the "Belt" and "Belt Extended" fields are for the sloping portions of the deck and the "Deck" and "Deck Extended" represent only the flat portion of the deck. Armored cruisers were obsoleted by a combination of battlecruisers arriving and armor weight for a given thickness lowering to the point that it became feasible add belts on smaller cruiser leading to the light armored cruiser later known as light cruisers. |
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on Jun 7, 2019 8:19:53 GMT -6
Yes, the developers have confirmed that for the protected cruiser scheme the "Belt" and "Belt Extended" fields are for the sloping portions of the deck and the "Deck" and "Deck Extended" represent only the flat portion of the deck. Armored cruisers were obsoleted by a combination of battlecruisers arriving and armor weight for a given thickness lowering to the point that it became feasible add belts on smaller cruiser leading to the light armored cruiser later known as light cruisers. Thanks! Yes... I know that basically the battle cruiser mainly took over the role of the armoured cruiser from around 1905-1910 or so... They did continue to build protected cruisers for some time though but mostly now smaller ones for scouting and patrol duties until the "light cruiser" became available and more common. I have sort of noticed this in my games as well... as soon as I can build battle cruisers I don't really build armoured cruisers anymore either and rather build smaller more economically viable protected/light cruisers and heavier and better armed and armoured battle cruisers. The armoured cruiser age seem to be rather short in most of my games but the AI love to build them for some reasons even when battle cruisers are far more viable platform. |
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Jun 7, 2019 8:29:14 GMT -6
Yes, the developers have confirmed that for the protected cruiser scheme the "Belt" and "Belt Extended" fields are for the sloping portions of the deck and the "Deck" and "Deck Extended" represent only the flat portion of the deck. Armored cruisers were obsoleted by a combination of battlecruisers arriving and armor weight for a given thickness lowering to the point that it became feasible add belts on smaller cruiser leading to the light armored cruiser later known as light cruisers. The armoured cruiser age seem to be rather short in most of my games but the AI love to build them for some reasons even when battle cruisers are far more viable platform. Armoured cruisers make excellent colonial police boats and trade protectors for a long time after they stop being useful frontline units. Of course the AI is now much keener on heavy cruisers when they become available and so you have to be careful but still for me they tend to linger in service longer than pre-dreadnoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 7, 2019 8:38:32 GMT -6
Yes, the developers have confirmed that for the protected cruiser scheme the "Belt" and "Belt Extended" fields are for the sloping portions of the deck and the "Deck" and "Deck Extended" represent only the flat portion of the deck. Armored cruisers were obsoleted by a combination of battlecruisers arriving and armor weight for a given thickness lowering to the point that it became feasible add belts on smaller cruiser leading to the light armored cruiser later known as light cruisers. Thanks! Yes... I know that basically the battle cruiser mainly took over the role of the armoured cruiser from around 1905-1910 or so... They did continue to build protected cruisers for some time though but mostly now smaller ones for scouting and patrol duties until the "light cruiser" became available and more common. I have sort of noticed this in my games as well... as soon as I can build battle cruisers I don't really build armoured cruisers anymore either and rather build smaller more economically viable protected/light cruisers and heavier and better armed and armoured battle cruisers. The armoured cruiser age seem to be rather short in most of my games but the AI love to build them for some reasons even when battle cruisers are far more viable platform. In RTW1 I didn't always shift to light armored cruisers right away because the armor was still too heavy to be able to afford a decent armored belt. I would wait for one or two tech levels of armor (and hull and propulsion machinery since they all have roughly the same due dates) to be researched so that I could afford the weight of the belt. It also delayed my switch from coal fired to oil fired in my CL for the same reason. Having an oiled fired protected cruiser is not a good idea since you have nothing protecting the sides. RTW2 is different since armor weight doesn't change with tech level. I might still wait a couple of techs so that my armor is more effective before I give up the benefits of thicker sloped deck and the coal bunkers. |
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on Jun 7, 2019 8:41:18 GMT -6
The armoured cruiser age seem to be rather short in most of my games but the AI love to build them for some reasons even when battle cruisers are far more viable platform. Armoured cruisers make excellent colonial police boats and trade protectors for a long time after they stop being useful frontline units. Of course the AI is now much keener on heavy cruisers when they become available and so you have to be careful but still for me they tend to linger in service longer than pre-dreadnoughts. Yes... as in real life they were relegated to second rate duties and most were scrapped or removed from active service around 1920. Few new CA were constructed past 1905... and that is also what I tend to do in the game. I retain my older cruisers until about 1915-20 for second rate duties. Colonies being one of them for sure. I think it highly depend on what country you play I guess. I usually play Japan at historical resources so I need to retain as much ships for as long as I can to remain decently on par with the other powers in terms of number of ships. So I will have to keep my older cruiser for an expended period, but I don't build new CA past the first few years in the game. Once I can build proper BC that is what I build until much later when the heavy cruiser might get interesting because of some treaty. Not sure that heavy cruisers would have been a thing in the real world without the treaties making them a thing... but that is probably a different question.  |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 7, 2019 9:03:11 GMT -6
Armoured cruisers make excellent colonial police boats and trade protectors for a long time after they stop being useful frontline units. Of course the AI is now much keener on heavy cruisers when they become available and so you have to be careful but still for me they tend to linger in service longer than pre-dreadnoughts. First class cruisers (midsize and large CAs, arguably some large CLs) are very inefficient for covering station tonnage requirements - ships larger than 6,000 tons only count for 4,000 + [displacement]/3 tons on colonial stations (+25% if fitted for colonial service), and most stations don't need any more than 6,000 tons anyways. They're also rather expensive ships that in my experience rarely show up for fights in colonial sea zones, and I have on many occasions sunk lone early-game CAs with a pair of 6" CLs that, even put together, cost less than the CA would have, without using torpedoes. Predreadnought/semidreadnought-period first class cruisers rarely survive past 1910 in my fleets as they're the most expensive ships of the predreadnought/semidreadnought period and also, in my opinion, the least useful going into the dreadnought period.
The British Hawkins class predates the Washington Naval Treaty, and the American Omaha class is significantly larger and carries many more guns than was typical for 6" cruisers of the WWI period; at the same time, economic pressures (especially with unrestricted capital ship construction programs) would still have given an impetus to the construction of smaller, less expensive cruisers for trade protection and showing the flag around the colonial empire, or by smaller navies that can't really afford or don't need the larger, more powerful cruisers. I personally feel that a heavy cruiser would still have existed in the absence of the treaties, but probably would not have been as common as it was historically.
|
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Jun 7, 2019 11:03:33 GMT -6
Armoured cruisers make excellent colonial police boats and trade protectors for a long time after they stop being useful frontline units. Of course the AI is now much keener on heavy cruisers when they become available and so you have to be careful but still for me they tend to linger in service longer than pre-dreadnoughts. First class cruisers (midsize and large CAs, arguably some large CLs) are very inefficient for covering station tonnage requirements - ships larger than 6,000 tons only count for 4,000 + [displacement]/3 tons on colonial stations (+25% if fitted for colonial service), and most stations don't need any more than 6,000 tons anyways. They're also rather expensive ships that in my experience rarely show up for fights in colonial sea zones, and I have on many occasions sunk lone early-game CAs with a pair of 6" CLs that, even put together, cost less than the CA would have, without using torpedoes. Predreadnought/semidreadnought-period first class cruisers rarely survive past 1910 in my fleets as they're the most expensive ships of the predreadnought/semidreadnought period and also, in my opinion, the least useful going into the dreadnought period.
The British Hawkins class predates the Washington Naval Treaty, and the American Omaha class is significantly larger and carries many more guns than was typical for 6" cruisers of the WWI period; at the same time, economic pressures (especially with unrestricted capital ship construction programs) would still have given an impetus to the construction of smaller, less expensive cruisers for trade protection and showing the flag around the colonial empire, or by smaller navies that can't really afford or don't need the larger, more powerful cruisers. I personally feel that a heavy cruiser would still have existed in the absence of the treaties, but probably would not have been as common as it was historically.
You do not have them for their tonnage but for their guns and armour, covering or hitting convoys against the other sides light/protected cruisers or if they have them armoured cruisers is they excel. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 7, 2019 12:30:46 GMT -6
You do not have them for their tonnage but for their guns and armour, covering or hitting convoys against the other sides light/protected cruisers or if they have them armoured cruisers is they excel. - As far as I can tell, the Trade Protection role cares more about numbers than unit quality. - A pair of decent ~5,000t 6" cruisers can and often will sink a ~12,000t 10" cruiser in a daylight gunnery engagement if handled aggressively, without the use of torpedoes. - You shouldn't need first class cruisers to defeat the enemy's second and third class cruisers. - Running into a convoy and shooting up the transports while ignoring or avoiding the heavier escorts is viable, especially if the heavier escorts are slower than your attacking ships. If you're playing in Rear Admiral's or Captain's mode and have two divisions to work with, you can also try baiting the escort off with one ship while the other runs past to hit the transports. |
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on Jun 7, 2019 16:57:25 GMT -6
I only play on the Admiral difficulty... seems more realistic... I only play on captain on surprise attacks in the early game because of "issues"... anyway I agree with the notion that numbers sometimes are more important than quality but not always. In a cruiser action then quality usually is important and those heavier more armoured and armed ships often can have equal or even better speed than some CL, then it becomes a turkey shoot.
But anyway I actually made a large 10" gun protected cruiser to skimp on the armour and this pair of ships seemed to have been a relatively good hit in the early game. I gained an additional knot and still had pretty decent armour on that CA. This certainly seem like a viable option in the early game, especially for raiding purposes. They hunted down and destroyed several enemy CL now on raiding duty. These heavier protected cruisers might become my goto ship for raiding duty now to support my smaller more vulnerable CL doing the same.
Most of the time I don't much care for putting CL or CA on trade production... they seem perfectly viable to hunt enemy raiders when put on raiding duty themselves. I usually leave the protection for the corvettes and destroyers.
Anyway... all these ships have a purpose and do well in certain situations and less so in others. If you want a cruiser able to stand in the battle line you want proper armoured cruisers. Sending armoured cruisers as raiders and for trade protection is generally not optimal but works if you don't have anything else for them to do.
I also currently play with a 70% research progress, this also seem to make progress a bit more historical so you will have to live with lower tech for a bit longer and you will need to build more incremental changes in the ship design, which also leave your fleet a bit more fragmented than otherwise, at least that seem to be the case. Currently I start building BC at around 1905-07 the same as the other more advanced countries. As Japan in a historical setting I also tend to keep building everything bigger than around 4-5000t in Britain who usually have the best technology available.
|
|
