|
|
Post by pashahlis on Oct 24, 2019 19:17:32 GMT -6
I am playing the 1920 start as Germany on very large fleet size for a challenge and here is my Deutschland-class design!
The class is named after famous Admiral Scheer of the German East Asian squadron as this ship is supposed to be a lone commerce raider like his squadron was. Every ship is named after a famous Imperial admiral:
Admiral Spee Admiral Scheer Admiral Tirpitz Admiral Hipper
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 24, 2019 20:00:10 GMT -6
I am playing the 1920 start as Germany on very large fleet size for a challenge and here is my Deutschland-class design!
The class is named after famous Admiral Scheer of the German East Asian squadron as this ship is supposed to be a lone commerce raider like his squadron was. Every ship is named after a famous Imperial admiral:
Admiral Spee Admiral Scheer Admiral Tirpitz Admiral Hipper
Very nice. Personally I would use sloped armor instead of flat deck because that is for carriers. I would reduce the number of 6 inch guns. The more turrets, the more problems you could have. If this ship is a raider, have you considered adding torpedo tubes, they can be very helpful for raiders. I don't know about that extreme range, I think long would be sufficient, but I would have to test this idea. Anyway, nice design for a raider, it is similar to my armored cruisers for raiders. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 24, 2019 21:24:23 GMT -6
Personally, I would consider 190 rounds per gun excessive for an 11" main battery, especially if you're mainly expecting to fight cruisers, and even if you had to reduce the secondary battery a bit to fit it - or even drop to 10" guns instead of 11" - I'd rather have six guns than four, all the more so if the 'historical' Washington Treaty isn't in effect since 5" / 1.5" armor is only resistant to 8" guns at fairly long range and is unlikely to provide reliable protection against the 9" or 10" guns that the computer might use on its cruisers in the absence of the 8" gun limit of the WNT.
As with oldpop, I feel that Extreme Range is probably unnecessary, although maybe it's worthwhile as extra insurance against scuttling on a dedicated large surface raider since it's an expensive ship to lose that way.
I don't consider using large warships for surface raiding cost-effective within the game, at least if you're looking to sink merchants rather than trying to bait out and kill intercepting cruisers; raiding doesn't generate enough victory points for it to be a worthwhile use of a ship in that regard - it's only 5 VP per merchant sunk, and in my experience raiders score not more than 5 and probably more commonly 0-3 merchants per turn - while collapses are more easily triggered by large numbers of cheap raiders than by a handful of individually-powerful raiders.
I don't know if you managed to fit seaplanes onto your design or not, but if it's meant to be a raider you might want to find tonnage for one.
Personally I would use sloped armor instead of flat deck because that is for carriers. Flat Deck isn't "for carriers," it's the game's representation of the historical armor schemes which had the main armor deck at or near the top of the main armor belt rather than at or near the waterline, and is also required if you want to make use of the game's 'true' All-or-Nothing armor scheme, which is indicated by the AoN next to the symbol for the selected armor scheme and limits the risks involved with leaving off Belt Extended and Deck Extended armor to save tonnage. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 25, 2019 7:45:17 GMT -6
Personally, I would consider 190 rounds per gun excessive for an 11" main battery, especially if you're mainly expecting to fight cruisers, and even if you had to reduce the secondary battery a bit to fit it - or even drop to 10" guns instead of 11" - I'd rather have six guns than four, all the more so if the 'historical' Washington Treaty isn't in effect since 5" / 1.5" armor is only resistant to 8" guns at fairly long range and is unlikely to provide reliable protection against the 9" or 10" guns that the computer might use on its cruisers in the absence of the 8" gun limit of the WNT.
As with oldpop, I feel that Extreme Range is probably unnecessary, although maybe it's worthwhile as extra insurance against scuttling on a dedicated large surface raider since it's an expensive ship to lose that way.
I don't consider using large warships for surface raiding cost-effective within the game, at least if you're looking to sink merchants rather than trying to bait out and kill intercepting cruisers; raiding doesn't generate enough victory points for it to be a worthwhile use of a ship in that regard - it's only 5 VP per merchant sunk, and in my experience raiders score not more than 5 and probably more commonly 0-3 merchants per turn - while collapses are more easily triggered by large numbers of cheap raiders than by a handful of individually-powerful raiders.
I don't know if you managed to fit seaplanes onto your design or not, but if it's meant to be a raider you might want to find tonnage for one.
Personally I would use sloped armor instead of flat deck because that is for carriers. Flat Deck isn't "for carriers," it's the game's representation of the historical armor schemes which had the main armor deck at or near the top of the main armor belt rather than at or near the waterline, and is also required if you want to make use of the game's 'true' All-or-Nothing armor scheme, which is indicated by the AoN next to the symbol for the selected armor scheme and limits the risks involved with leaving off Belt Extended and Deck Extended armor to save tonnage. Thanks for the insight, I will have to investigate the armor scheme. Still, I am not certain that a ship designed as a raider needs such a scheme. Sloped armor has good ballistic qualities against the types of ships this raider is intended to fight. I would remove those midship guns and add a floatplane, 2 specifically. I would add torpedo tubes and when technology is gain for diesels, build a ship like this with diesels. I think that would be a better mix for a raider. We need to remember their mission and their primary targets are not battleships, hopefully, but merchants who might have destroyers and light cruisers for escorts. This ship could easily handle them. I've built and used these types of ships as raiders along with upgraded armored cruisers coupled with submarines and won almost every war easily with them I average about 3 to 5 ships sunk per month. Works well. I started a 1920 game as Germany and designed this ship class. With time, I could have diesels and launchers but it is still the configuration I like. Hope you do to.  Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 25, 2019 9:59:09 GMT -6
This might be a dumb question but I am old. Is there anyway to design a ship for RTW2 without having to play the game. I mean design a fleet and use it in a game. But I could play with the designs.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 25, 2019 11:21:27 GMT -6
This might be a dumb question but I am old. Is there anyway to design a ship for RTW2 without having to play the game. I mean design a fleet and use it in a game. But I could play with the designs. It is not possible. You need save which defines technological level of you and other nations as without that you cannot design a ship. |
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Oct 25, 2019 11:25:24 GMT -6
Personally, I would consider 190 rounds per gun excessive for an 11" main battery, especially if you're mainly expecting to fight cruisers, and even if you had to reduce the secondary battery a bit to fit it - or even drop to 10" guns instead of 11" - I'd rather have six guns than four, all the more so if the 'historical' Washington Treaty isn't in effect since 5" / 1.5" armor is only resistant to 8" guns at fairly long range and is unlikely to provide reliable protection against the 9" or 10" guns that the computer might use on its cruisers in the absence of the 8" gun limit of the WNT.
As with oldpop, I feel that Extreme Range is probably unnecessary, although maybe it's worthwhile as extra insurance against scuttling on a dedicated large surface raider since it's an expensive ship to lose that way.
I don't consider using large warships for surface raiding cost-effective within the game, at least if you're looking to sink merchants rather than trying to bait out and kill intercepting cruisers; raiding doesn't generate enough victory points for it to be a worthwhile use of a ship in that regard - it's only 5 VP per merchant sunk, and in my experience raiders score not more than 5 and probably more commonly 0-3 merchants per turn - while collapses are more easily triggered by large numbers of cheap raiders than by a handful of individually-powerful raiders.
I don't know if you managed to fit seaplanes onto your design or not, but if it's meant to be a raider you might want to find tonnage for one.
Flat Deck isn't "for carriers," it's the game's representation of the historical armor schemes which had the main armor deck at or near the top of the main armor belt rather than at or near the waterline, and is also required if you want to make use of the game's 'true' All-or-Nothing armor scheme, which is indicated by the AoN next to the symbol for the selected armor scheme and limits the risks involved with leaving off Belt Extended and Deck Extended armor to save tonnage. Thanks for the insight, I will have to investigate the armor scheme. Still, I am not certain that a ship designed as a raider needs such a scheme. Sloped armor has good ballistic qualities against the types of ships this raider is intended to fight. This armor scheme is actually lighter and cheaper than sloped deck (because you get AoN benefits and also deck itself is lighter). So flat deck is definitely the right choice in my opinion.
EDIT: Your design has sloped deck scheme (no AoN) but no DE/BE armor which means its in danger of sinking by BE penetration.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 25, 2019 13:53:03 GMT -6
Here is a later design of Von Der Tann as battle cruiser but she is still raider. New armor scheme which I hope is the proper one. It does have two floatplanes added but still has to stop to launch, which for a raider is ok. IMHO.  |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 25, 2019 14:02:58 GMT -6
EDIT: Your design has sloped deck scheme (no AoN) but no DE/BE armor which means its in danger of sinking by BE penetration. In practice, I don't consider a lack of BE/DE armor to be too great an issue for non-'true'-AoN ships in the dreadnought era. It's unlikely that you'd have enough BE/DE armor to stop main battery shells fired by comparable opponents from penetrating at reasonable engagement ranges, and the damage inflicted by secondary/tertiary guns tends to become fairly insignificant compared to that of main battery guns between the larger and - at least on capital ships - often also heavier main batteries of dreadnought-era and later warships as compared to equivalent predreadnought-era warships, the increasing engagement ranges rendering targeted bombardment of specific parts of a ship significantly less feasible, and the late development of secondary and lack of development of tertiary battery fire control systems as compared to main battery fire control systems further hampering the effectiveness of those weapons at the increasingly-long typical engagement ranges. |
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Oct 25, 2019 15:40:34 GMT -6
EDIT: Your design has sloped deck scheme (no AoN) but no DE/BE armor which means its in danger of sinking by BE penetration. In practice, I don't consider a lack of BE/DE armor to be too great an issue for non-'true'-AoN ships in the dreadnought era. It's unlikely that you'd have enough BE/DE armor to stop main battery shells fired by comparable opponents from penetrating at reasonable engagement ranges, and the damage inflicted by secondary/tertiary guns tends to become fairly insignificant compared to that of main battery guns between the larger and - at least on capital ships - often also heavier main batteries of dreadnought-era and later warships as compared to equivalent predreadnought-era warships, the increasing engagement ranges rendering targeted bombardment of specific parts of a ship significantly less feasible, and the late development of secondary and lack of development of tertiary battery fire control systems as compared to main battery fire control systems further hampering the effectiveness of those weapons at the increasingly-long typical engagement ranges. I personally find that it is good to have at least 2" of armour on BE and DE to protect against splinters. As for the sloped deck scheme itself, I use it for big CLs and everything bigger. With a reasonable belt and thick deck you can forget about anything reaching the vitals, as far as BBs(versus everything) and CAs(versus other CAs, of course) are concerned, and it somewhat reduces the chances of your expensive CL being rendered nonoperational and sunk by a cheap 3x3 6" boat. |
|
|
|
Post by pashahlis on Oct 25, 2019 19:01:05 GMT -6
Well, before the answers in this thread I already redesigned the ship, it looks like this now:
But I have the problem now that I am at war with the USSR and I only had 4 of these, together with about 16 modern DDs, 10 old DDs, 2 old Bs, 4 old CAs and 1 old CL and 8 new CLs building and 8 new DDs building. The Red Navy is both superior in numbers and quality. However, I managed to hold them off so far, losing 1 Deutschland-Class, another heavily damaged, 1 B sunk and multiple DDs sunk. In return I amanged to sink some of his ships including one of his modern BCs due to a torpedo attack by my DDs. I attached that design as well.
The Deutschland-Class seems to be a bad design. I have barely managed to sink anything with them, or even hit anything. I am not sure where the bad accuracy comes from. The armour is also wholly insufficient, even against just cruisers. And yes I played with the Washington Treaty on. Having said that, does being at war remove both the Washington and Versailles treaty for me?
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 25, 2019 19:32:48 GMT -6
Having said that, does being at war remove both the Washington and Versailles treaty for me? It should, yes.
At least part of it is likely to be the small main battery, especially when you're engaging with only one of your two turrets - there's an accuracy penalty for small salvo size when you're only firing one or two guns. Another part is that 11" guns don't have a particularly high rate of fire so you're not going to have as many chances to score hits as you'd have with lighter guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 25, 2019 23:41:21 GMT -6
In practice, I don't consider a lack of BE/DE armor to be too great an issue for non-'true'-AoN ships in the dreadnought era. It's unlikely that you'd have enough BE/DE armor to stop main battery shells fired by comparable opponents from penetrating at reasonable engagement ranges, and the damage inflicted by secondary/tertiary guns tends to become fairly insignificant compared to that of main battery guns between the larger and - at least on capital ships - often also heavier main batteries of dreadnought-era and later warships as compared to equivalent predreadnought-era warships, the increasing engagement ranges rendering targeted bombardment of specific parts of a ship significantly less feasible, and the late development of secondary and lack of development of tertiary battery fire control systems as compared to main battery fire control systems further hampering the effectiveness of those weapons at the increasingly-long typical engagement ranges. I personally find that it is good to have at least 2" of armour on BE and DE to protect against splinters. As for the sloped deck scheme itself, I use it for big CLs and everything bigger. With a reasonable belt and thick deck you can forget about anything reaching the vitals, as far as BBs(versus everything) and CAs(versus other CAs, of course) are concerned, and it somewhat reduces the chances of your expensive CL being rendered nonoperational and sunk by a cheap 3x3 6" boat. This is reason why I usually build smaller CLs especially for colonial empires as UK or France. With torpedoes numbers have quality of her own. |
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Oct 26, 2019 16:20:53 GMT -6
I personally find that it is good to have at least 2" of armour on BE and DE to protect against splinters. As for the sloped deck scheme itself, I use it for big CLs and everything bigger. With a reasonable belt and thick deck you can forget about anything reaching the vitals, as far as BBs(versus everything) and CAs(versus other CAs, of course) are concerned, and it somewhat reduces the chances of your expensive CL being rendered nonoperational and sunk by a cheap 3x3 6" boat. This is reason why I usually build smaller CLs especially for colonial empires as UK or France. With torpedoes numbers have quality of her own. That's what destroyers are for  Personally, I find the CL torpedo behaviour too wonky to depend on them for that purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by xt6wagon on Oct 27, 2019 22:53:10 GMT -6
Some notes:
4 of any caliber gun is largely for show. Minimal accuracy to go with minimal rpm.
Needs secondary and tertiary guns in numbers, as the main guns aren't going to do it.
6" with 5" is dumb in reality as the splashes of one can be confused for the other, harming accuracy. I've found in the game running 6" and 5" is brutal, routinely allowing cl with larger main, 6" secondary and 5" tertiary guns to chainsaw down larger ships built like yours. You really want to get the first hit in of any gun size, but both 5 and 6" can do the job on targets of any size. 4" is also good, but seems to lack that one shot stop on light de and ke. Anyway, get number of barrels up, hit early, hit often, watch them cry as the wrecked fire control makes them merely a target.
|
|
