AI BB/BC Builds

[pcasey]

The AI builds a lot of ships.
We (players) fight a lot of their ships.

I'd argue that the AI does a bad job at designing ships post 1918, and that it gives us, the player too much of an advantage.

Specifically I'd argue that the AI consistently under-armors its BB/BC builds.

Even a 1930/1940 design from the AI seems to cap out at a 12" belt which is trivially defeated by even a 12" gun by that time period ... penetration values go way up, but the AI builds don't crank up armor thickness.

I suspect part of this is because the AI largely likes to build ships based on historical ships and very few historical BB/BC had belts north of 12" ... KGV, Yamato come to mind but Iowa was 12", bismark was 12.5, Rodney was like 13.5, etc.

I'd argue though that there are two flaws with using historical ships as models for what the AI should build post 1918.

Flaw #1 --- most of the post WWI builds were constrained by the washington naval treaty to an artificial limit of 35k. That limit, in turn, limited protection. Absent that limit though navies could, and did, go much bigger (Yamato). In a game w/o a naval treaty I would expect builds that expand upon what the treat limits were ... bigger/thicker was possible it just wasn't done b/c of the theory.

Flaw #2 --- 12" of belt armor in a 1912 design isn't the same thing as 12" of belt armor in a 1940 design. Between better metallurgy and improved configurations the effective protection of the 12" armor belt on the Iowa was quite a bit better than the effective protection on, say HMS Warspite even though warspite nominally had a 13" belt. The game models this improvement in armor technology as reduction in *weight* so that a ship built in 1940 needs less mass to provide 12" of protection than a ship build in 1910. Historically though, designers didn't thin out their armor, they kept it the same mass but expected it to provide more protection; in game the same mass of armor always provides the same amount of protection.

A relatively easy "fix" I would think would be to add more model designs to the major navies which really crank up displacement and armor thickness.

[mycophobia]

The immediate fix would be to use the more AI design mod in the mod sub-board. It adds great variety and lets AI build some truly scary ships.

I also agree that enemy design should be more varied, maybe have some oddball player submission added for variety?

Regarding your flaws, The AI does go bigger than the treaty, and I've seen 45000 ton ships in un-modded playthroughs, but they are essentially scaled up version of 35000 ton ships(I've seen too many nelson/Richlieu clone....), so variety in the higher ends are certainly welcome

Regarding armor thickness, armor mechanic in RTW 2 is redesigned. While some armor tech still give weight reduction, vast majority of them improve armor quality(This is hidden, but can be gleamed when you check the penetration of your guns, since its compared against your contemporary armor). So that factor is already in game, 12in in 1905 is probably have no chance against a 16in gun in 1915, but said 1915 16in gun, without a lead in AP technology will have harder time with say, 1940 12in armor at longer ranges. --> Do bear in mind that since AP technology also increase, it may create the impression that your armor isn't improving over the years, but in reality I find the difference pretty significant if you put a decade between two ships.

[jma286]

Yeah it would be great to have some 50k+ ton ships with reasonable armor and fewer clones of historical ships.

[yemo]

I thought about making a few designs, but I heard that only 10 per era and class are used.
So since there are certainly people better at doing this, I would have to choose whether I use their designs or mine.

If the design naming scheme is improved to be more open to addons (or someone tells me that it already is), I ll happily contribute.

Eg if a new armored cruiser design for era 0 for all nations could be named CA0Xyemo15.tdf then I would only need to worry about my own designs for the naming scheme and not about designs from other modders.

It simply makes no sense to have to compete with the unmodded game and other modders for eg CA0X9.tdf design name spot.

[deeznuts]

The game does model armour getting better over time as well as weight reductions, it’s just the armour penetrating ability grows at a faster rate than armour improvement.

A ship built with 12 Inches in 1912 will have a lot less effective armour than a ship built in 1922 with the same thickness in game.

[rodentnavy]

Jul 3, 2019 16:44:21 GMT -6 deeznuts said:

The game does model armour getting better over time as well as weight reductions, it’s just the armour penetrating ability grows at a faster rate than armour improvement.

A ship built with 12 Inches in 1912 will have a lot less effective armour than a ship built in 1922 with the same thickness in game.

I think you need to be a little cautious of armour penetration figures as given in tables (this applies both in real life as in game).  These tend to represent 50% penetration chances under ideal circumstances.  In combat shells intersecting armour rarely do so under ideal circumstances.  With a little practice and judgement you can develop a feel for armour schemes that while nominally ineffective actually keep your ships fairly resistant to damage in game. 

[dorn]

Jul 4, 2019 3:25:54 GMT -6 rodentnavy said:

Jul 3, 2019 16:44:21 GMT -6 deeznuts said:

The game does model armour getting better over time as well as weight reductions, it’s just the armour penetrating ability grows at a faster rate than armour improvement.

A ship built with 12 Inches in 1912 will have a lot less effective armour than a ship built in 1922 with the same thickness in game.

I think you need to be a little cautious of armour penetration figures as given in tables (this applies both in real life as in game).  These tend to represent 50% penetration chances under ideal circumstances.  In combat shells intersecting armour rarely do so under ideal circumstances.  With a little practice and judgement you can develop a feel for armour schemes that while nominally ineffective actually keep your ships fairly resistant to damage in game. 

My experience is that you can go a little outside "immunity zone" without any serious damage as risk is quite low.

[abclark]

Jul 4, 2019 3:46:22 GMT -6 dorn said:

Jul 4, 2019 3:25:54 GMT -6 rodentnavy said:

I think you need to be a little cautious of armour penetration figures as given in tables (this applies both in real life as in game).  These tend to represent 50% penetration chances under ideal circumstances.  In combat shells intersecting armour rarely do so under ideal circumstances.  With a little practice and judgement you can develop a feel for armour schemes that while nominally ineffective actually keep your ships fairly resistant to damage in game. 

My experience is that you can go a little outside "immunity zone" without any serious damage as risk is quite low.

The Royal Navy actually went so far as to calculate immunity zones based on a 75 degree impact instead of a 90 degree impact in the later interwar/WWII period. Because of how face hardened armor works that makes for a significant reduction in penetration capability.

[mycophobia]

Things going on in my head in most 10s gun battles where everyone's immunity zone is probably the at all ranges....:

"Wot, wot do yooz mean our gunz aren't "penentrating"? We will see wot aren't "penetrating" when I jump over to their boat and put me choppa in their 'ead! Turn tha boat around, 'ere we go lads! Waaaaagh!"

If you drive close enough something will get through, and if it didn't, your ship can definitely go through his ship.

[alkiap]

I definitely agree that better variation would be welcome. Generally i see designs in the 42-45K tons from the 30s onward, which personally I do not see as a major problem since I also don't exceed that limit - I prefer more hulls, not bigger ships.
However, always seeing the same design, from basically all countries, gets boring.
The AI also under-armors their ships, especially in terms of belt thickness.

[arminpfano]

Am I the only one here not caring about immunity zones or penetration distances? Normally it is an appropriate tactic to close in and fight it out at point blank range. My capitals are all equipped with a hunting setup of 2 x 3 or 2 x 4 forward.

[yemo]

Jul 6, 2019 9:05:11 GMT -6 arminpfano said:

Am I the only one here not caring about immunity zones or penetration distances? Normally it is an appropriate tactic to close in and fight it out at point blank range. My capitals are all equipped with a hunting setup of 2 x 3 or 2 x 4 forward.

Are you playing on Admiral mode or Captain mode?

[alsadius]

I build for immunity zones, at least somewhat, but I rarely fight that way. Typically, my battleships support my destroyers, and operate at whatever range is appropriate to dumping shells into the targets they've crippled.

That said, looking at the IZ is a good way to ensure I've got reasonable armour. If I have a nice meaty one, I've probably built a battleship that cam withstand some shells. It's all statistical anyway, and it's never truly immune, but a 14" belt against 16" pen is still going to reduce my damage substantially overall.

[rodentnavy]

Jul 6, 2019 9:45:01 GMT -6 alsadius said:

I build for immunity zones, at least somewhat, but I rarely fight that way. Typically, my battleships support my destroyers, and operate at whatever range is appropriate to dumping shells into the targets they've crippled.

That said, looking at the IZ is a good way to ensure I've got reasonable armour. If I have a nice meaty one, I've probably built a battleship that cam withstand some shells. It's all statistical anyway, and it's never truly immune, but a 14" belt against 16" pen is still going to reduce my damage substantially overall.

I also tend to favour some thought as to an immunity zone.  Up to about the 1920s I am looking for one of at least 14-17,000 yards as that is where I aim to sit if I can.  The reason for that range is that my ships can score a meaningful number of hits, playing that statistics game you mention and AI builds are normally optimised for close in gun brawling so I want to avoid that.  Later on I will often be paying far more attention to my decks than my belts anyway because of longer range gunnery and air attack but depending on how the game is going a belt that defends at around 20k yards or better is nice to have. 

[rimbecano]

Jul 6, 2019 9:05:11 GMT -6 arminpfano said:

Am I the only one here not caring about immunity zones or penetration distances? Normally it is an appropriate tactic to close in and fight it out at point blank range. My capitals are all equipped with a hunting setup of 2 x 3 or 2 x 4 forward.

I use all forward setups, but I still build for immunity zones, and am not so inclined to close to point blank immediately (though if a death ride called for tactically, all forward designs are certainly best equipped for it, and the death in that ride tends to be on the other side).