|
|
Post by griffin01 on Jun 23, 2019 5:46:23 GMT -6
While I know that no one here shares my fetish for secondary guns, however, I believe they should be looked at anyways... This is fine:  Fine too:  Travesty:  All I want to say is that the cut-off points are rather... weird, and should be really reconsidered. They also don't scale with displacement at all, 14 8" guns is the maximum on a 20000 t ship, too, and this one has almost 4 times that displacement. It seems weird to me that this game, otherwise rather realistic, enables mounting 14 battleship-caliber secondaries without issue, and disallows much more sensible battery of cruiser-caliber guns. I believe that putting 10" + guns as secondaries should be heavily limited, while the ability to use 9" guns and below should scale sensibly with displacement. |
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Jun 23, 2019 5:53:29 GMT -6
I agree with your quest for Moar Dakka. I've never tried such large secondaries, but I shall endeavor to in my next game.
I do have a personal like for semidread designs as they are often built with heavy compromises that force you to design carefully.
|
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Jun 23, 2019 6:06:03 GMT -6
I agree with your quest for Moar Dakka. I've never tried such large secondaries, but I shall endeavor to in my next game. I do have a personal like for semidread designs as they are often built with heavy compromises that force you to design carefully. Frankly, If you mean those 16" atrocities, I haven't tried them either and hope that circumstances never force me to do so  However, I often put 8" secondary guns on my ships due to my engagements often being at 8000-14000 yards, and I don't believe that they should be this heavily restricted. PS. As for Semi-dreadnoughts, I love them too, however not as much as to build them after good BB designs are available. |
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jun 23, 2019 16:40:21 GMT -6
I agree with your quest for Moar Dakka. I've never tried such large secondaries, but I shall endeavor to in my next game. I do have a personal like for semidread designs as they are often built with heavy compromises that force you to design carefully. Frankly, If you mean those 16" atrocities, I haven't tried them either and hope that circumstances never force me to do so However, I often put 8" secondary guns on my ships due to my engagements often being at 8000-14000 yards, and I don't believe that they should be this heavily restricted. PS. As for Semi-dreadnoughts, I love them too, however not as much as to build them after good BB designs are available. Don't knock my heavy secondaries. They've seen off more BCs than most mains! But yes, the scaling seem to be a bit off. The scaling for AAA seems to be smarter. |
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Jun 23, 2019 16:47:26 GMT -6
Frankly, If you mean those 16" atrocities, I haven't tried them either and hope that circumstances never force me to do so However, I often put 8" secondary guns on my ships due to my engagements often being at 8000-14000 yards, and I don't believe that they should be this heavily restricted. PS. As for Semi-dreadnoughts, I love them too, however not as much as to build them after good BB designs are available. Don't knock my heavy secondaries. They've seen off more BCs than most mains! But yes, the scaling seem to be a bit off. The scaling for AAA seems to be smarter. You probably didn't expect such treasonous words from me, right? To be frank, you can have your 4x3 15" secondaries - it doesn't bother me any, as the AI won't build that anyways. As long as I can have my 8x3 8" autoloaded rifles, I'm happy. |
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jun 23, 2019 16:57:43 GMT -6
Don't knock my heavy secondaries. They've seen off more BCs than most mains! But yes, the scaling seem to be a bit off. The scaling for AAA seems to be smarter. You probably didn't expect such treasonous words from me, right? To be frank, you can have your 4x3 15" secondaries - it doesn't bother me any, as the AI won't build that anyways. As long as I can have my 8x3 8" autoloaded rifles, I'm happy. I won't put up with this blasphemy - it's a keel hauling for you! 😂 But yes, I can quite imagine that they murder CLs. I'm an all-or-nothing (awful pun intended) kind of guy. I either go for heavy (generally 14-16" though I did consider 19" once!) secondaries or very light DP mounts (4-6"). I don't find much use for medium calibre. All-forward armourment is my only exception. I need as heavy guns as possible making up for the lack of an after main turret but there often isn't enough space on an 'early' 30,000t ship (or bigger if some ridiculous idiot insists on 20" guns) . I go for the biggest possible which is normally between 8" and 11" until the late '20s. |
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Jun 23, 2019 17:24:55 GMT -6
You probably didn't expect such treasonous words from me, right? To be frank, you can have your 4x3 15" secondaries - it doesn't bother me any, as the AI won't build that anyways. As long as I can have my 8x3 8" autoloaded rifles, I'm happy. I won't put up with this blasphemy - it's a keel hauling for you! 😂 But yes, I can quite imagine that they murder CLs. I'm an all-or-nothing (awful pun intended) kind of guy. I either go for heavy (generally 14-16" though I did consider 19" once!) secondaries or very light DP mounts (4-6"). I don't find much use for medium calibre. All-forward armourment is my only exception. I need as heavy guns as possible making up for the lack of an after main turret but there often isn't enough space on an 'early' 30,000t ship (or bigger if some ridiculous idiot insists on 20" guns) . I go for the biggest possible which is normally between 8" and 11" until the late '20s. It is quite clever of you, if perhaps not intended, to utilize the fact that secondary magazines do not need to be armoured This practically makes the all-forward armament free tonnage. Personally, I prefer 8-9" guns max for a couple of reasons: - I fight my battles VERY close. Cruiser-caliber guns can then capitalize on their superior rate of fire compared to the heavy guns, and penetration is less of an issue. - Battleships can be mission killed with lighter guns, but in addition to that, 8-9" guns can heavily damage unarmoured/lightly armoured parts of the ship, as the weight of the shell is significantly bigger, while still not risking overpenetrations. They are deceptively good at wrecking heavy ships, unless someone decides to go for 10" extended belt (lol). They do not lose out that much on fire rate compared to 6" guns, too. - With my ammunition loadouts being unimpressive, I'm worried that 6" autoloaded guns will burn through the stores too quickly, while normal 6" will have reduced output. - You mentioned murdering CL, but CA are also extremely vulnerable to that. Sometimes derpy BC that AI builds will also fall victim to those guns. Basically, anything that has less than 7.5" belt will suffer critical existence failure, while anything that stays close for any significant period of time will suffer cruel and unusual death. Thus, I believe that those calibers are kind of a "sweet spot" for me when it comes to secondary batteries. Big enough to do significant damage, small enough to still have large RoF benefits over the primary armament. As for the DP mounts, while I use them, for now, I have a bit of a distaste for them. I'd like to have separate battery available at all times to engage aircraft, while my tertiaries are free to engage enemy vessels. I hope that when the missile update hits, SAM will count as heavy AA, so that I'll be able to stuff my ships full of rockets. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jun 23, 2019 19:18:46 GMT -6
I've been known to use 8-inch secondaries on sesquidreadnoughts, but generally don't build anything with larger than 6" secondaries after 1910 or so, and since RTW2 came out, I've tended towards 5" secondaries in anticipation of DP refits.
|
|
|
|
Post by lukasdietrich on Jun 23, 2019 20:19:41 GMT -6
16" gun in a casement?
Is such a thing even possible?
|
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jun 24, 2019 1:18:39 GMT -6
16" gun in a casement? Is such a thing even possible? Yes. Tried it. Would NOT recommend. Go for single mounts. Otherwise it's just wasted tonnage. |
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jun 24, 2019 1:32:36 GMT -6
I won't put up with this blasphemy - it's a keel hauling for you! 😂 But yes, I can quite imagine that they murder CLs. I'm an all-or-nothing (awful pun intended) kind of guy. I either go for heavy (generally 14-16" though I did consider 19" once!) secondaries or very light DP mounts (4-6"). I don't find much use for medium calibre. All-forward armourment is my only exception. I need as heavy guns as possible making up for the lack of an after main turret but there often isn't enough space on an 'early' 30,000t ship (or bigger if some ridiculous idiot insists on 20" guns) . I go for the biggest possible which is normally between 8" and 11" until the late '20s. It is quite clever of you, if perhaps not intended, to utilize the fact that secondary magazines do not need to be armoured This practically makes the all-forward armament free tonnage. Personally, I prefer 8-9" guns max for a couple of reasons: - I fight my battles VERY close. Cruiser-caliber guns can then capitalize on their superior rate of fire compared to the heavy guns, and penetration is less of an issue. - Battleships can be mission killed with lighter guns, but in addition to that, 8-9" guns can heavily damage unarmoured/lightly armoured parts of the ship, as the weight of the shell is significantly bigger, while still not risking overpenetrations. They are deceptively good at wrecking heavy ships, unless someone decides to go for 10" extended belt (lol). They do not lose out that much on fire rate compared to 6" guns, too. - With my ammunition loadouts being unimpressive, I'm worried that 6" autoloaded guns will burn through the stores too quickly, while normal 6" will have reduced output. - You mentioned murdering CL, but CA are also extremely vulnerable to that. Sometimes derpy BC that AI builds will also fall victim to those guns. Basically, anything that has less than 7.5" belt will suffer critical existence failure, while anything that stays close for any significant period of time will suffer cruel and unusual death. Thus, I believe that those calibers are kind of a "sweet spot" for me when it comes to secondary batteries. Big enough to do significant damage, small enough to still have large RoF benefits over the primary armament. As for the DP mounts, while I use them, for now, I have a bit of a distaste for them. I'd like to have separate battery available at all times to engage aircraft, while my tertiaries are free to engage enemy vessels. I hope that when the missile update hits, SAM will count as heavy AA, so that I'll be able to stuff my ships full of rockets. I hadn't thought of the secondary magazines. How clever of me... 😂😂😂 I can see the benefit of medium calibre secondaries. Closer than 5000yds, the ROF will more than make up for the lack of shell weight. As I say, I use them on smaller capital ships without the tonnage for my ridiculously heavy secondaries. However, the ships do have to be very close to penetrate much armour with an 8". I have a pathological fear of torpedoes (side effect of 90kt BBs...) so it's not really an option to get so close, especially if the mains are slow-firing. I too have a distaste of DP guns. Ordinarily, I'd never use 4-6" guns on capitals past 1915. If you get close enough for them to be useful anti-surface weapons, you've been torpedoed. But the fact remains that they are the best AA option for fleet manoeuvres, especially when surrounded by a destroyer screen (otherwise known as floating LAAA batteries). I hope the missiles can change this and I can go back to 14" secondaries in peace! |
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Jun 24, 2019 2:02:06 GMT -6
Accidental genius is the best kind of genius. With TPS4 and 90000 t of displacement, you can afford to eat the torpedos that the traumatized survivors of your withering fire will launch. Frankly, I always throw some tertiaries in, they weight almost nothing, and I find the low-calibre firepower neccessary for protection against destroyers. |
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Jun 24, 2019 9:16:01 GMT -6
16" gun in a casement? Is such a thing even possible? I'm not sure? Did any central battery ships have guns larger than 11"? Technically speaking the British built a submarine with a 12" gun... I assume that the technical issue would be that a symmetrical layout of guns basically means that you have wing turrets. One could theoretically have an s-shaped superstructure with asymmetrical casements though! So, I don't see why you couldn't put a 20" gun in a casement. There may be a bunch of reasons why one wouldn't want to do that... but wouldn't and couldn't are two different concepts. |
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 24, 2019 23:33:48 GMT -6
I personally don't bother with anything bigger than 6'' guns as secondaries. Reasons are varied but one stands out before any other: On one hand you're compromising A LOT of tonnage on guns which are called "secondary" for a reason, and on A LOT of armor to protect them properly (unless you want your ships to be blown up even by enemy cruisers). Also, you're effectively multiplying the chances that your ship will insta-go down with a flashfire. With secondaries of 6'' or less only your main turret mounts will be susceptible of a flash fire. With secondaries of 7'' or more (well protected or not), it's your main turret mounts AND your secondary turret mounts. I can see those mounts being worthwhile for semi-dreads, but to be honest given how tiny the window it is for those ships to actually be useful, they aren't even worth building because most of the time by the moment they get built there'll already be dreadnoughts in the pipeline (much as it happened in real life). And on proper dreadnoughts for me they're not only a handicap...they actually increase your odds of losing the ship instantly due to unlucky hits. Massive no-no for a capital ship for the way I handle things. There are more reasons why I don't go for that kind of setup but basically that one just ends the debate on wether using them or not, before it begins to me. But hey, as long as it works for others...  . |
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 25, 2019 7:02:33 GMT -6
I tried a 'house rule' game (with RtW1) where my US Navy remained committed to heavy secondaries even in the dreadnought era. Say, a battlecruiser with 9x12" guns and 16x10" for example.
While I had some success, I found myself on the short end of the gunnery stick. Secondary directors come along moderately late, meaning that for many years secondaries just aren't worth much at battle range since they can't hit. After secondary directors were installed I found my heavy secondaries killing fish while trying to hit DDs and cruisers, since capital ships declined to close the range enough for my secondaries to be effective against them - and I had no control over what those secondaries chose to shoot at. Meanwhile I was losing the gunnery battle to enemies with a full battery of main-caliber armament.
In my current game I have an early BC design that uses 6x11" and 12x8" guns, and since I've been careful with them they have worked out OK. But as with your 'floating islands' it was a case of using up available tonnage I couldn't reasonably spend on anything of higher value, like another 11" turret. Your ships are admirable, and quite cool, but until or unless we get separate control of secondary and tertiary batteries, I'll spend my tonnage on the all-big-gun ship. It is still the superior way to put shells on target... I'd replace those 'main caliber' secondaries with 6" or less, reduce the tonnage and build two ships instead, but I am a 'quality AND quantity' guy LOL.
That all said, I've always had a sneaky admiration for the 'ugly duckling' semi-dreadnoughts and I tend to keep mine around after the pre-dreadnoughts are gone. They make lovely support ships for a secondary theater.
|
|
.
