Roles of cruisers through the ages?

[ulzgoroth]

I'm mostly curious about what the functions of late-era CAs are, but I figured throwing a broader framework out (and seeing what fire it draws) would be more effective and interesting than the narrow question without context.

Periods:

• Early: Before BCs rise
  
• Mid: BB and BC era
  
• Late: Mature aviation era, most AIs abandon BCs
  

Early cruisers:

BC: By definition, absent.

CA: Heavy raiders, fourth-rate battleships, heavy fleet scouts

CL: Light raiders, fleet scouts, destroyer destroyers.

Mid-era cruisers:

BC: Heavy fleet scouts and CA-bane, often battle line fire support, very expensive raiders

CA: Might still have a niche as heavy raiders, mostly absent from battles and construction.

CL: Same as before, plus heavy torpedo ship role once they get deck tubes. Later in the period take on AA escort functions as well.

Late-era cruisers:

BC: Mostly vanished.  The heavy scout role is both less useful with air recon and dangerous if it exposes you to an air strike without sufficient escort and CAP.  Perhaps they simply merged with the increasingly speedy battleship force?

CA: Tend to be very popular, but what are they for?

CL: All the previous roles continue, though large destroyers with DP main guns offer a credible alternative.

[jishmael]

I'd never raid with anything heavier than a CL, way too expensive for the return and the risk of internment or even scuttle. But tbh I'm not convinced by surface raiders anyway.

Two points on the late game:

1. BC are not obsolete at all, it might be gamey, but you want them to reliably spawn in cruiser engagements to destroy your enemy's that thought bcs were obsolete

2. Which leads to the late game CA, I have no idea what they're supposed to do and why they are there. With late guns and fire control the extra Armour is a waste of tonnage and they get mauled by properly build CL and BC alike.

[rimbecano]

"Cruiser" has two meanings:

1) The role of raiding, trade protection against raiders, and scouting.

2) The type of ship designs that were used in the late 19th and 20th centuries for the cruiser role.

So the role of all cruiser types (sense 2), at its core is to be cruisers (sense 1). Heavier cruiser types are meant to be able to outgun lighter cruiser types, lighter cruiser types are meant to be cheap enough to be in more places at once than heavier cruiser types. Battlecruisers have the additional role (at least notionally, the historical British BCs weren't actually up to the task) of standing in the line of battle aping with BBs. CAs and CLs had the additional role of screening the battle line against torpedo attack, and, eventually, of providing AA cover as well.

[rimbecano]

[Source] jishmael said:

2. Which leads to the late game CA, I have no idea what they're supposed to do and why they are there. With late guns and fire control the extra Armour is a waste of tonnage and they get mauled by properly build CL and BC alike.

It's quite possible to armor a CA to stand up to fire from CLs. As for armament, just the secondary battery necessary to provide adequate anti-DD and DP AA protection tends to have a broadside equivalent to a CL, and the main battery makes sure that CLs aren't even batting in the same league.

I'd be more inclined to ask what CLs are there for, but the big thing about the cruiser role is that you need a lot of them (though exactly how many depends on your nation's colonial commitments), and the real role of the CL is to be cheaper than a CA. If you're playing Britain, CAs are a questionable investment: you need enough to keep your opponents honest, but you need enough colonial tonnage that building your entire cruiser force with CAs isn't an option. As Japan or AH, CLs are a questionable investment: Your foreign service requirements are trivial to fulfill, so CLs are just food for your opponents' CAs (especially in the early game when it's hard to build a decent CL that can outrun a CA). The US tends to be in the same boat, it has greater colonial commitments than the smaller powers, but much less than Britain's, and an economy the size of Britain's, so it can build its cruiser force for quality rather than quantity.

[ulzgoroth]

In the game, it hardly seems like you need the cruiser role you describe at all. That all falls into mostly indecisive trade warfare, plus a handful of light cruisers to provide a daylight scout front.

In gameplay terms I'd say by far the most significant roles for cruisers are protecting larger ships against destroyer and air attack, and forming the main force when the game generates smaller battles.

Aug 26, 2019 1:07:59 GMT -6 jishmael said:

I'd never raid with anything heavier than a CL, way too expensive for the return and the risk of internment or even scuttle. But tbh I'm not convinced by surface raiders anyway.

Manual says that larger ships have less chance of that, and it's easier to budget for long range and reliable engines with a larger ship. Also probably less likely to be thwarted by TP CLs, and more likely to win if an intercept combat happens.

Aug 26, 2019 1:07:59 GMT -6 jishmael said:

1. BC are not obsolete at all, it might be gamey, but you want them to reliably spawn in cruiser engagements to destroy your enemy's that thought bcs were obsolete

The hazard, of course, is that you'll get your expensive capital ships caught in a major airstrike or a torpedo brawl and lose more than you wanted to stake. (You might be able to build BCs that don't have that problem in the game, somehow?)

[mycophobia]

Aug 26, 2019 9:07:34 GMT -6 ulzgoroth said:

In the game, it hardly seems like you need the cruiser role you describe at all. That all falls into mostly indecisive trade warfare, plus a handful of light cruisers to provide a daylight scout front.

In gameplay terms I'd say by far the most significant roles for cruisers are protecting larger ships against destroyer and air attack, and forming the main force when the game generates smaller battles.

Aug 26, 2019 1:07:59 GMT -6 jishmael said:

Actually, you can argue that the game's propensity to generate more cruiser focused engagements over fleer battles, a cruiser's "Cruising" role are somewhat represented through that. Especially against enemy with a superior fleet, focusing getting VP from cruiser engagement against his light forces isn't a bad idea to "play it safe".

Which is why I generally prefer decent CLs over CA beyond early game, since CLs will appear in almost all engagements, and are more easily built to out run BC. The fact that AI seldom build CAs outside of treaty also makes it better to just invest in good CLs.(I am probably gonna experiment with budget CL killing CAs in the 8-9000 ton range if I have a chance tho)

My number 1 role for a cruiser is to beat up other cruisers in cruiser battle. I don't expect them to do anything in a fleet battle in particular, where scouting are usually left to the BCs. However, their loadout can make them useful as a big DD when I get desperate, and make for useful screen/scout when visibility is bad.

[dorn]

This is weakness too.
If enemy has no cruisers you get almost no advantage. The advantage is much lower than in RTW1 as battle generator works differently preferring larger battles and your cruisers even numerous are seldom included in destroyers engagements.

[mycophobia]

Aug 26, 2019 11:17:46 GMT -6 dorn said:

This is weakness too.
If enemy has no cruisers you get almost no advantage. The advantage is much lower than in RTW1 as battle generator works differently preferring larger battles and your cruisers even numerous are seldom included in destroyers engagements.

That is true, especially as the AI in rtw in general don't build as much cruisers as nations did IRL. The AI does build to replace lost cruisers however, so you can take a cut out of their capital ship budget this way. 

I don't necessarily build numerous cruisers either, just enough to take some losses I will probably suffer since you cant really build CLs to be so decisively superior to other CLs most of the time. (Which is also why I said I might experiment with mini CAs) They are cheap enough that it doesnt feel too punishing if they end up being big DDs. (They can even get some decent torp hit in at night battles if you take a bit of risk with them as well)

[aardvark]

Aug 25, 2019 21:20:39 GMT -6 ulzgoroth said:

I'm mostly curious about what the functions of late-era CAs are, but I figured throwing a broader framework out (and seeing what fire it draws) would be more effective and interesting than the narrow question without context.

Periods:

• Early: Before BCs rise
  
• Mid: BB and BC era
  
• Late: Mature aviation era, most AIs abandon BCs
  

Early cruisers:

BC: By definition, absent.

CA: Heavy raiders, fourth-rate battleships, heavy fleet scouts

CL: Light raiders, fleet scouts, destroyer destroyers.

Mid-era cruisers:

BC: Heavy fleet scouts and CA-bane, often battle line fire support, very expensive raiders

CA: Might still have a niche as heavy raiders, mostly absent from battles and construction.

CL: Same as before, plus heavy torpedo ship role once they get deck tubes. Later in the period take on AA escort functions as well.

Late-era cruisers:

BC: Mostly vanished.  The heavy scout role is both less useful with air recon and dangerous if it exposes you to an air strike without sufficient escort and CAP.  Perhaps they simply merged with the increasingly speedy battleship force?

CA: Tend to be very popular, but what are they for?

CL: All the previous roles continue, though large destroyers with DP main guns offer a credible alternative.

I've often noticed that late game the AI builds only BCs, not BBs. I think the issue is that it if is above a certain speed (which is period dependent) it categorizes the design as a BC. On the other hand, if it has a heavy enough belt, it decides that a fast ship is a BB regardless of speed.

[oldpop2000]

Some fun information for you..... wait for it. The first purpose built cruisers were the Wampanoag class built to hunt down Confederate commerce raiders starting in 1863. They were specifically designed for the traditional cruiser role of commerce protection. All five were steam powered, 335 feet by 44 feet and displaced 4215 tons. They were provided with three 5.3 inch muzzle loaders, rifled and 10 9-inch smoothbores. After these, the British took up the challenge and began to develop their own three ships of the Inconstant class. There is the start of the "cruiser" as we know it. Always remember that the name "cruiser" was a mission, not a ship. It wasn't until much later than someone just applied the name to the ship type. 

[jishmael]

First off on the topic of CA, I explicitly talk about late game, 1945 onwards when the ai starts gets the ca fever and scraps it's bbs and bcs. That is an Era where a CAs 6" armor is useless against CL with 6" autoloaders, making it a horrible investment considering it will usually be outnumbered by those cls or spawn into larger battles where they're just cannon fodder for bc and up.

I usually build my late game CL at around 10k tons depending on tech, and heck, they've even killed (admittedly distracted) bc. And are more than enough to make ai dds turn back around.

I tried building 2 CA for fun in the late 40s and while they didn't do bad they both spawned into fleet battles and sunk while my CL roamed free (I think ai target priority plays a role too, it seems both sides caps prioritize shooting at a big ship at long range vs shooting at a closing CL with their mains)

So yeah as soon as I get 3 centerline turrets CAs are gone, and when the ai switches to CAs its game over.


On the matter of air strikes VS bc, as the only difference between bc and bb ends up being belt size, they aren't more vulnerable to air strikes then any other ship.
I also build them very big (40k and more) which means they carry a mean aa compliment.

I rigorously avoid operating under enemy land based air coverage unless I'm feeling cocky/got enough carriers with. Ton of fighters and I haven't lost a single ship to enemy air in two games. Ive had the odd torpedo hit, but with that size and tp IV that's inconsequential

[jwsmith26]

Since the RTW2 change to allow fast battleships to enter cruiser battles, I have avoided building BCs after the mid to late 20s. I now build heavily armored fast battleships as soon as I can and then convert all my BCs into battleships during rebuilds. Once all of the BCs are gone the only option left for the battle generator, when deploying my ships for cruiser battles, is to use my fast battleships. They rather easily defeat the AI BCs, and of course any of the numerous late game CAs that get thrown into the mix.

[aeson]

Aug 25, 2019 21:20:39 GMT -6 ulzgoroth said:

Periods:

• Early: Before BCs rise
  
• Mid: BB and BC era
  
• Late: Mature aviation era, most AIs abandon BCs

I might suggest defining the periods by the dominant style or type of capital ship - predreadnought, dreadnought, carrier - rather than by the availability of the BC type as the BC type becomes available when you hit Ship Design 2, which could place the 'rise' of the BC type in c.1901 (first ship that the game classifies as a BC laid down) / c.1904 (first ship that the game classifies as a BC commissioned) despite such early battlecruisers usually being of the Tsukuba type and thus fairly clearly products of the predreadnought era.

There's also that, conceptually and functionally, battlecruiser-type warships exist from the start of the game, they're just not classified as BCs. Big CAs along the lines of the historical Tennessee or Cressy usually show up in at least one power's legacy fleet, and the player can make Tsukuba-type CAs or exceptionally fast Bs even in the legacy build, so there's not really a clear point in the game at which the BC type rises unless you specifically mean the BC as those ships that the game classifies as BCs (or the dreadnought subset thereof) rather than as those ships which are functionally and conceptually the battlecruisers of their era.

As to the discussion regarding CAs:

I feel that there's a period in the game during the '20s and '30s, and maybe even into the '40s, where there's a decent case to build general-purpose cruisers as CAs rather than as CLs. The ships you build in this period are probably going to need a decent AA armament because they're likely to continue in service into the period where aircraft become dominant, but there isn't really a DP-capable gun that's good as both a CL main battery and an HAA battery until 5" DP (c.1933) or autoloaded 6" DP (c.1943) and you can probably fit a better 8" SP than 6" SP main battery onto an ~8,000- or ~10,000-ton cruiser while simultaneously carrying a decent DP secondary battery and AA armament.

I will add that it's possible to build CAs with 6" main batteries within the game, as long as they either carry too heavy a belt (maximum thickness greater than 3") or are too large to be CLs.

Since the RTW2 change to allow fast battleships to enter cruiser battles, I have avoided building BCs after the mid to late 20s. I now build heavily armored fast battleships as soon as I can and then convert all my BCs into battleships during rebuilds.

I don't normally convert old battlecruisers into battleships, but I likewise rarely build battlecruisers after reasonably-affordable fast battleships become viable alternatives.

[crossdeck]

In my current game I've abandoned cruisers entirely by 1940. It wasn't by choice, they just kept getting mined and torpedoed until I lost 30 CLs, so I went with swarms of jack-of-all-trades destroyers.  Those submarine/mine events are a lot cheaper now.

[ulzgoroth]

Aug 27, 2019 10:32:25 GMT -6 aeson said:

Aug 25, 2019 21:20:39 GMT -6 ulzgoroth said:

Periods:

• Early: Before BCs rise
  
• Mid: BB and BC era
  
• Late: Mature aviation era, most AIs abandon BCs

I might suggest defining the periods by the dominant style or type of capital ship - predreadnought, dreadnought, carrier - rather than by the availability of the BC type as the BC type becomes available when you hit Ship Design 2, which could place the 'rise' of the BC type in c.1901 (first ship that the game classifies as a BC laid down) / c.1904 (first ship that the game classifies as a BC commissioned) despite such early battlecruisers usually being of the Tsukuba type and thus fairly clearly products of the predreadnought era.

There's also that, conceptually and functionally, battlecruiser-type warships exist from the start of the game, they're just not classified as BCs. Big CAs along the lines of the historical Tennessee or Cressy usually show up in at least one power's legacy fleet, and the player can make Tsukuba-type CAs or exceptionally fast Bs even in the legacy build, so there's not really a clear point in the game at which the BC type rises unless you specifically mean the BC as those ships that the game classifies as BCs (or the dreadnought subset thereof) rather than as those ships which are functionally and conceptually the battlecruisers of their era.

As to the discussion regarding CAs:

I feel that there's a period in the game during the '20s and '30s, and maybe even into the '40s, where there's a decent case to build general-purpose cruisers as CAs rather than as CLs. The ships you build in this period are probably going to need a decent AA armament because they're likely to continue in service into the period where aircraft become dominant, but there isn't really a DP-capable gun that's good as both a CL main battery and an HAA battery until 5" DP (c.1933) or autoloaded 6" DP (c.1943) and you can probably fit a better 8" SP than 6" SP main battery onto an ~8,000- or ~10,000-ton cruiser while simultaneously carrying a decent DP secondary battery and AA armament.

I will add that it's possible to build CAs with 6" main batteries within the game, as long as they either carry too heavy a belt (maximum thickness greater than 3") or are too large to be CLs.

Classifying eras by the 'dominant capital ship' would seem to be off the point. I'm looking for cruiser roles - the state of the battle line is only relevant as it bears on that. I don't see the predreadnought/dreadnought divide as being obviously important there. BCs and BBs tend to rise at the same time, but not necessarily for the same reasons.

I have not seen a 'functional' battlecruiser in the game that wasn't also classified as one.  Maybe you could design one, but I have doubts it would work well - the gun and armor limits on the CA categorization are problems, and the speed gap between practical legacy-era heavy cruisers and predreadnoughts is narrow.

For mid-period CAs, I'm not sure I see the need those are filling, but I haven't built a single gunship in the 8-10 kton range in my current (1936) game. My heaviest CLs are 6700 tons, while my CAs are over 11 ktons (except one bizarre 6600 kton legacy class). Though such light CAs would certainly seem a better option for the period than the rather premature 14 kton heavy cruisers that Austria-Hungary has been feeding to my 30 kton battlecruiser divisions.