Explain your ship designs

[picard]

This is similar to "post your best ship designs", except here you post your new designs, and explain rationale behind the design (before you forget what you were thinking  )

-------------------------



So this be my new dreadnought. I generally binge-build docks as far as they go, so I end up with quite large ships early on - hence the displacement. I also modded my Byzantine Empire with bigger budget so I could afford this thing. 

Anyway, the most obvious feature of the design is Richellieu-style 2x4 all-forward main gun arrangement. This was done in order to reduce the weight of main armament to minimum (similar design logic is also followed in the Nelson-class battleship, which indeed may have inspired Richellieu). Its advantage is twofold: first, it reduces number of main gun turrets to two (compared to 3x3 or 4x2 arrangement), which reduces the amount of armour required as well as the weight of machinery. Second, it reduces the length of the armoured citadel, thus saving on belt and deck armour. Disadvantage is that one turret knocked out puts full half of main battery out of service, which is why I sometimes opt for a 3x3 or even 3x4 arrangement, albeit still all-forward. As for secondary turrets, I opted for 5-inch calibre to prevent the dreaded "battleship blows up due to secondary turret penetration" issue (one time I decided to design battleships with 8-in secondaries, just for **** and giggles, and lost two battleships to secondary turret penetrations. In a single battle.).

Now onto the left side. Since I'm playing Byzantine Empire mod, I went for medium range, normal freeboard, but only 23 knot top speed: same top speed, in fact, as British interwar Nelson-class battleships. And as it so happens, it is June 1925 in game, whereas good ol' Nelsol was laid down in 1922 and launched in 1925. But then, this is a 47 000 ton monster, not 34 000 ton treaty battleship. I opted for coal since I have no access to oil. Belt is 16 in in thickness while deck is 6 in - I skimped on deck a bit because I opted for a turtleback design. Not sure whether it is worth it, but I know it is intended to protect ships at close range - which is where I expect a lot of fighting will be happening (Mediterranean, remember). Main turrets however are 17 inch face and 8 inch roof, which is more than Nelson's historical 16 in / 6 in setup; turns out that playing Britain for a long time makes you kinda paranoid about turret penetrations.

Only problem is, I'm not sure I will ever get to build this one. Just got slapped by a treaty. That being said, whatever I do build will be based on these principles. Even my cruisers are now running arround with a 2x4 main turret setup.

[picard]

My old battlecruiser design just got validation. Less than a minute or two into battle, and Italian battlecruiser got blown up:







As it can be seen, it follows German tradition of trading firepower for speed. Difference is that I did not reduce gun calibre, but rather reduced a number of guns to six. That was enough for a decent speed of 30 knots while maintaining battleship armour; though admittedly, 14'' guns and main belt armour is slightly undergunned and underarmoured for a 37 000 ton ship (British King George V had 35 000 ton displacement and 14'' guns, but it had ten guns instead of six, and 15'' belt armour).

[picard]

End result: I lost 1 DD, while sinking 1 BC and 1 DD.

[noshurviverse]

Allow me to level some minor criticism of your design. Your game is well into the 30's, so the dozen 3" guns seem a rather odd choice. Given the fact that DDs have increased in size to the point that 3" rounds are going to annoy rather than sink them, as well as the fact that torpedo ranges increase to the point where they will not be spending much time in the line of fire. Also keep in mind that tertiary guns are always under local control and unarmored. So all in all I would eliminate them outright and use that weight to increase the armor on the secondary turrets, as 1.5" is still vulnerable to splinter knockouts, and you have precious few 5" guns to lose.

[avimimus]

The 3in guns have a very high rate of fire (considerably higher than 4in guns) and they also can be turned into dual-purpose guns earlier. But I agree that advances in torpedo technology means that large ships should switch to larger secondaries in the 1930s in order to get increased range and hit the destroyers prior to them getting a firing solution.

[aeson]

Oct 25, 2019 12:13:09 GMT -6 avimimus said:

The 3in guns ... can be turned into dual-purpose guns earlier.

Not in Rule the Waves 1 they can't. Even if this were Rule the Waves 2 I don't think that I'd call the earlier DP capability of 3" guns as opposed to 5" or 6" guns a real advantage to carrying a 3" tertiary battery on an early dreadnought, especially with the guns being casemated rather than deck-mounted. Even with an existing deck-mounted 3" battery, you still need a refit to implement DP capability, and that refit's not going to be much if any cheaper than taking off a couple secondary guns to fit a bunch of completely-new 3" or 4" DP guns.

As to 3" versus heavier guns for anti-DD work, my experience is that 3" guns don't really have the stopping power needed to effectively interfere with torpedo attacks made by destroyers much bigger than maybe 700 tons or so - i.e. they're unlikely to damage an attacking destroyer quickly enough and seriously enough to significantly impede a torpedo attack - and they start having engagement range issues circa 1910 due to the increasing speed and range of torpedoes. 4", 5", and 6" guns may not have the same rate of fire as 3" guns, but their greater range lets them engage an attacking destroyer earlier and their greater expected hit damage makes them more likely to cripple or even sink a destroyer with only a few hits, the game's accuracy mechanics favor weapons with higher maximum range - though that's offset by the game also having a potential accuracy penalty depending on the caliber of the weapon and the size of the target, and increasing torpedo speeds and ranges reduce the window in which secondary/tertiary guns can stop torpedo attacks before torpedoes can be launched with good chances of hitting.

[distortedhumor]

The most effective design for me, other then commerce raiding types, is the Pocket BC built as a CA. You can build these in 1900 and with one or two refits have them to the end of the game.

You can build them up from the start with the following general guidelines 24-25 knots of speed, 4x 10 inch guns built in two turrets, and about 5 inches of turret and belt armor. they will have 10-12 secondaries of the 5-6 inch range. They are expensive, but are so worth it.

updated to oil firing they can easily get 28 knots, and these are most likely not optimized designs.

1. They will outgun AND outspeed most other CAs
2. They will really outgun CLs, and many time are faster then then the CLs of the era they are built.
3. AMCs will get devastated.
4. With even CL support I have taken out Bs with this class, as long as the B has to split it fire.
5. They are great "close in" raiders as they will sink merchants and be better then almost any ship sent to stop their raiding (as they get older and less worried about them being impounded you can send them overseas)
6. Not put them vs. BC, but in that case it would be close in and see who gets the first heavy shots in.

I built 8 of these in my current game (being my main unit other then a handful of Bs or BBs to keep blockade away) and only have lost one, the CSS Bayou City which was lost in the battle of Guadeloupe were it sunk 3 French CAs and one French CL but succumbed to flooding after the battle.

[dorn]

Mar 21, 2020 8:38:05 GMT -6 distortedhumor said:

The most effective design for me, other then commerce raiding types, is the Pocket BC built as a CA. You can build these in 1900 and with one or two refits have them to the end of the game.

You can build them up from the start with the following general guidelines 24-25 knots of speed, 4x 10 inch guns built in two turrets, and about 5 inches of turret and belt armor. they will have 10-12 secondaries of the 5-6 inch range. They are expensive, but are so worth it.

updated to oil firing they can easily get 28 knots, and these are most likely not optimized designs.

1. They will outgun AND outspeed most other CAs
2. They will really outgun CLs, and many time are faster then then the CLs of the era they are built.
3. AMCs will get devastated.
4. With even CL support I have taken out Bs with this class, as long as the B has to split it fire.
5. They are great "close in" raiders as they will sink merchants and be better then almost any ship sent to stop their raiding (as they get older and less worried about them being impounded you can send them overseas)
6. Not put them vs. BC, but in that case it would be close in and see who gets the first heavy shots in.

I built 8 of these in my current game (being my main unit other then a handful of Bs or BBs to keep blockade away) and only have lost one, the CSS Bayou City which was lost in the battle of Guadeloupe were it sunk 3 French CAs and one French CL but succumbed to flooding after the battle.

I will give you questions to think about. How much this armoured cruiser costs when you built it and how much did this refit increasing speed to 28 knots cost?
What enemy ships this ship is good against and against which ship does it struggle?

[distortedhumor]

Mar 21, 2020 11:11:31 GMT -6 dorn said:

Mar 21, 2020 8:38:05 GMT -6 distortedhumor said:

The most effective design for me, other then commerce raiding types, is the Pocket BC built as a CA. You can build these in 1900 and with one or two refits have them to the end of the game.

You can build them up from the start with the following general guidelines 24-25 knots of speed, 4x 10 inch guns built in two turrets, and about 5 inches of turret and belt armor. they will have 10-12 secondaries of the 5-6 inch range. They are expensive, but are so worth it.

updated to oil firing they can easily get 28 knots, and these are most likely not optimized designs.

1. They will outgun AND outspeed most other CAs
2. They will really outgun CLs, and many time are faster then then the CLs of the era they are built.
3. AMCs will get devastated.
4. With even CL support I have taken out Bs with this class, as long as the B has to split it fire.
5. They are great "close in" raiders as they will sink merchants and be better then almost any ship sent to stop their raiding (as they get older and less worried about them being impounded you can send them overseas)
6. Not put them vs. BC, but in that case it would be close in and see who gets the first heavy shots in.

I built 8 of these in my current game (being my main unit other then a handful of Bs or BBs to keep blockade away) and only have lost one, the CSS Bayou City which was lost in the battle of Guadeloupe were it sunk 3 French CAs and one French CL but succumbed to flooding after the battle.

I will give you questions to think about. How much this armoured cruiser costs when you built it and how much did this refit increasing speed to 28 knots cost?
What enemy ships this ship is good against and against which ship does it struggle?

They are expensive, however their years of service mitigates this as they are ships that can be used on front-line duty from the start to the end.   The only time they struggle is if they are stuck in a one one one battle with a BB or BC, but any 13,500 ton ship will have that issue.   However they will take out Bs with two light CLs to keep the B from focusing on one ships armor belt. 

The only time I lost one was when it got stuck in a close in fight  with two CAs that it couldn't flee from due to land masses and it sunk both but a waterline hit caused progressive flooding before it could get to port and it sunk after the mission. 

[dorn]

distortedhumor

And question is if it is not cheaper to build brand new cruiser after some time. Such ship would have either much better qualities or with similar qualities probably just a little more expensive than refit. However if you add maintenance costs, that can be a difference.

[distortedhumor]

Mar 22, 2020 13:23:23 GMT -6 dorn said:

distortedhumor

And question is if it is not cheaper to build brand new cruiser after some time. Such ship would have either much better qualities or with similar qualities probably just a little more expensive than refit. However if you add maintenance costs, that can be a difference.

A new ship is not likely to have lower maintenance, and the key thing is instead of building a replacement ship for a useful ship, I can build other ships that I need.  I can keep the 8 CAs in operation, and then use that money to build say, 3-4 BBs that my fleet might need badly.

[picard]

Well, my design philosophy just got a test in a battle against British (albeit I used modded nation). End result, Brits lost 3 battleships and 1 battlecruiser - mostly to turret flash fires (one to torpedoes), while I had two battleships immobilized by the end of the battle - one of which got stuck in middle of British fleet and peppered with gunfire and torpedoes. Both were sinking, but despite turrets being disabled and extreme short-range pounding - no flash fires. When battle resumed - thanks to AI deciding that it would be just cool to race my whole fleet back to battle *before* assigning new flagship - British lost BB Albion-class to turret flash fire in *first seconds* of the engagement. Two Canopuses were soon immobilized by torpedoes, and another was quickly lost to flash fire.

End result: I lost 4 battleships and 3 destroyers, Brits lost 8 battleships, 1 battlecruiser and 2 destroyers. I also have 2 capital ships heavily damaged to 3 British (1 BB and 2 BC). VP: 58 800 to 38 500.