|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 19, 2017 13:26:51 GMT -6
Did you add torpedo bulges in one of the refits? Cause that tends to drop speed by about 2kts
|
|
|
Post by hughesengles on Dec 19, 2017 14:00:04 GMT -6
Did you add torpedo bulges in one of the refits? Cause that tends to drop speed by about 2kts Yes!
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 20, 2017 15:23:36 GMT -6
I think the actual rule with bulges that you lose 10% of your design speed, rounded to the nearest integer using standard rounding. I personally don't think it's all that worth doing, but you can replace the engines with more powerful modern machinery to try to offset the loss of speed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2017 15:57:14 GMT -6
Well, I'll add an example of what NOT to build. Found an old savegame backup and there was this: It was: Protection: Unable to offer any real protection against any 15" or 16" guns; Firepower: The 9x17" cannot match 12x16" setups that a lot of AI nations are building. Also, turrets jams in combat are usual occurrences. As a result of having 3 turrets only, there are big gaps in the ship's firepower output. Cost: Very expensive. All in all it tries to focus on everything at the same time and fails to do anything well. After losing 3 times to enemy 12x16" BCs in 3 standup fair fights in 3 different playthrus I began to seriously question what went wrong - If 1 or 2 was some kind of fluke, and I believed at the time that was the case, 3 times meant it was a pattern. It was before anyone on the forums established that late game BCs should be glass cannons. So at that time for me it was a painful and puzzling lesson.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Dec 22, 2017 16:25:12 GMT -6
I avoid quad turrets just for the reason you specified, I can't tolerate losing 33% (or 50%!) of my firepower when a turret jams, which after 30 minutes of ranging fire usually seems to happen (by random odds) right when the slugging gets serious.
5 triples (late game) or 5 or 6 twins (mid game) is my preferred consignment.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 22, 2017 20:31:55 GMT -6
I avoid quad turrets just for the reason you specified, I can't tolerate losing 33% (or 50%!) of my firepower when a turret jams, which after 30 minutes of ranging fire usually seems to happen (by random odds) right when the slugging gets serious. 5 triples (late game) or 5 or 6 twins (mid game) is my preferred consignment. How do you get away with 5 triples? I can hardly do 4 triples without going for low speeds.
|
|
Roumba
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by Roumba on Dec 22, 2017 20:57:54 GMT -6
I've one more than one playthrough of all-forward oddballs like this until I get to triples in about 1909. Then things like this once I have quads in about 1915 or so, with a big displacement boost at some point to keep with armor needs, probably just before 1920.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Dec 22, 2017 23:46:51 GMT -6
I avoid quad turrets just for the reason you specified, I can't tolerate losing 33% (or 50%!) of my firepower when a turret jams, which after 30 minutes of ranging fire usually seems to happen (by random odds) right when the slugging gets serious. 5 triples (late game) or 5 or 6 twins (mid game) is my preferred consignment. How do you get away with 5 triples? I can hardly do 4 triples without going for low speeds. Well, its not a 16" gunned ship, or a BC, so- Compromises.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 23, 2017 0:14:47 GMT -6
Personally, I don't really feel like the fifth and later turrets are all that worth the cost in tonnage except possibly on cross deck designs (which I'd generally drop once you can do designs with four twin or three triple turrets unless you're stuck on low-caliber heavy guns) or unless you're doing something a bit silly, like trying to make a low-caliber capital ship work in the late game. I don't think you really need more than eight to ten 15" or 16" guns at any stage of the game except maybe if you're screwing around with mods, and for eight to ten 15" or 16" guns I find 4x2, 323, 3x3, 3223, and to a lesser extent 2x4 configurations satisfactory.
I will also say that I tend to feel that the cost of pushing the battle line speed past about 25 knots or the gun caliber above 16" isn't really justifiable for most designs in the unmodded game; you start having to sacrifice too much armor or invest way too much into a single ship, especially if you take it to an extreme like skwabie's Tirpitz. Two superships just aren't worth the three to five 'normal' ships you could build in the same time for about the same cost in most cases.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2017 3:04:48 GMT -6
Personally, I don't really feel like the fifth and later turrets are all that worth the cost in tonnage except possibly on cross deck designs (which I'd generally drop once you can do designs with four twin or three triple turrets unless you're stuck on low-caliber heavy guns) or unless you're doing something a bit silly, like trying to make a low-caliber capital ship work in the late game. I don't think you really need more than eight to ten 15" or 16" guns at any stage of the game except maybe if you're screwing around with mods, and for eight to ten 15" or 16" guns I find 4x2, 323, 3x3, 3223, and to a lesser extent 2x4 configurations satisfactory. I will also say that I tend to feel that the cost of pushing the battle line speed past about 25 knots or the gun caliber above 16" isn't really justifiable for most designs in the unmodded game; you start having to sacrifice too much armor or invest way too much into a single ship, especially if you take it to an extreme like skwabie's Tirpitz. Two superships just aren't worth the three to five 'normal' ships you could build in the same time for about the same cost in most cases. BC battles in RtW emphasis a lot single ship ability. One can build 2 very strong BC, or 4 cheap ones, but only 2 will take part in a 2v2 cruiser battle. BBs are like this as well but less often. It is IMO why lotta users wish for some sort of operational planning in future games as currently it is a lot easier to build strong ships and sod the numbers. The Tirpitz on 52k tons would be fine had they be able to perform but they didnt, they failed to defeat AI enemies 2v2 - equal numbers. The late game AI 12x16 BC is pretty good, glass cannon maximus.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 23, 2017 12:32:48 GMT -6
BC battles in RtW emphasis a lot single ship ability. One can build 2 very strong BC, or 4 cheap ones, but only 2 will take part in a 2v2 cruiser battle. BBs are like this as well but less often. It is IMO why lotta users wish for some sort of operational planning in future games as currently it is a lot easier to build strong ships and sod the numbers. The Tirpitz on 52k tons would be fine had they be able to perform but they didnt, they failed to defeat AI enemies 2v2 - equal numbers. The late game AI 12x16 BC is pretty good, glass cannon maximus. My experience is that something like this doesn't lose to the computer's designs much if any more regularly than something like this and costs a hell of a lot less. That's especially true in fair weather daylight engagements, where you're more likely to be able to engage at ranges where deck armor matters and your turrets have some semblance of immunity to 16" gunfire. More to the point, though, something like this beats the computer's designs regularly in fair weather daytime engagements, and this can be made a fair bit cheaper without unduly compromising its capabilities, e.g. by cutting back on the belt armor since if you're planning to fight at long range it's not that likely to be hit, or by cutting back on the torpedo defense because TP3-4 costs a lot more tonnage than TP2 and TP2 is generally adequate, or by dropping the speed to 27 knots because 16" guns can hit just about anything you can see by the stage of the game where you can build something like this and going faster doesn't really buy you that much of an advantage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2017 12:44:35 GMT -6
aeson I'm game. I'll do some save file editing and setup mock battles.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 23, 2017 13:34:40 GMT -6
Personally, I don't really feel like the fifth and later turrets are all that worth the cost in tonnage except possibly on cross deck designs (which I'd generally drop once you can do designs with four twin or three triple turrets unless you're stuck on low-caliber heavy guns) or unless you're doing something a bit silly, like trying to make a low-caliber capital ship work in the late game. I don't think you really need more than eight to ten 15" or 16" guns at any stage of the game except maybe if you're screwing around with mods, and for eight to ten 15" or 16" guns I find 4x2, 323, 3x3, 3223, and to a lesser extent 2x4 configurations satisfactory. I will also say that I tend to feel that the cost of pushing the battle line speed past about 25 knots or the gun caliber above 16" isn't really justifiable for most designs in the unmodded game; you start having to sacrifice too much armor or invest way too much into a single ship, especially if you take it to an extreme like skwabie's Tirpitz. Two superships just aren't worth the three to five 'normal' ships you could build in the same time for about the same cost in most cases. BC battles in RtW emphasis a lot single ship ability. One can build 2 very strong BC, or 4 cheap ones, but only 2 will take part in a 2v2 cruiser battle. BBs are like this as well but less often. It is IMO why lotta users wish for some sort of operational planning in future games as currently it is a lot easier to build strong ships and sod the numbers. The Tirpitz on 52k tons would be fine had they be able to perform but they didnt, they failed to defeat AI enemies 2v2 - equal numbers. The late game AI 12x16 BC is pretty good, glass cannon maximus. Yes, I can see this is one of main disadvantages of RtW. Its not only for BC and BB, but for cruisers too. Building overpowered ship which is much more expensive, more maintanence costly, is more effective than building ship which is cost effective as the battles is not ships per costs build but per numbers. Its a pitty as this force you to build best where quality only matters. And AI is not quite competent build best quality which advantage player even more. Second thing I have notice (I do not have statistics yet) is probability hits. Its seem to me that my ships even with less guns are able to defeat IA ships. In BB and BC engagements it is difficult to notice as the quality of ships overweigh this howeveer in cruisers engagements it could easily seen if you use cheap cruisers and not 7000 tons large overpowered cruisers. My 2000-3000 tons cruisers usually can deal with much better AI cruisers - quite strange to me. This however does not mean that game is bad, I just would like to point out that even game we love so much and all the time we can see how good the design is the game still have some weak areas. I hope that RtW2 could be better as battle of the River Plate is practically not possible in RtW. And especially british strategy post WW1 to build large numbers in average quality ships as oppose to that of mainly Germany, Japanese and Italiens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2017 14:36:29 GMT -6
More to the point, though, something like this beats the computer's designs regularly in fair weather daytime engagements, and this can be made a fair bit cheaper without unduly compromising its capabilities, e.g. by cutting back on the belt armor since if you're planning to fight at long range it's not that likely to be hit, or by cutting back on the torpedo defense because TP3-4 costs a lot more tonnage than TP2 and TP2 is generally adequate, or by dropping the speed to 27 knots because 16" guns can hit just about anything you can see by the stage of the game where you can build something like this and going faster doesn't really buy you that much of an advantage. Okie. 2v2. The touted 6x16" vs the opfor being 2 49600ton 12x16" AI BC. Objective: survive. Game1.rar (487.97 KB) 10+ times so far, best result of mine is 2 sunk again 2 enemy medium damage. I can also just martyr one and maybe or maybe not escape with the other.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Dec 23, 2017 14:47:23 GMT -6
Second thing I have notice (I do not have statistics yet) is probability hits. Its seem to me that my ships even with less guns are able to defeat IA ships. In BB and BC engagements it is difficult to notice as the quality of ships overweigh this howeveer in cruisers engagements it could easily seen if you use cheap cruisers and not 7000 tons large overpowered cruisers. My 2000-3000 tons cruisers usually can deal with much better AI cruisers - quite strange to me. This however does not mean that game is bad, I just would like to point out that even game we love so much and all the time we can see how good the design is the game still have some weak areas. I hope that RtW2 could be better as battle of the River Plate is practically not possible in RtW. And especially british strategy post WW1 to build large numbers in average quality ships as oppose to that of mainly Germany, Japanese and Italiens. I think this is because the AI by its nature must constantly assess the progress of the action and therefore changes course frequently, thus negating the "steady shooting" bonus, which players (myself at least) typically covet.
|
|