Post by dorn on Oct 28, 2019 6:40:02 GMT -5
Right now there is no disadvantage using V position instead of X position.
On top of that there are 3 possibilities to use V turret when X turret is not possible:
a) on cruisers V position is possible even if superimposed X turret is not invented
b) on destroyers V position is possible even if superimposed gun mounts on destroyers are not possible
c) on armoured/heavy cruisers V position is possible even if superimposed gun mounts on CAs is not possible
Another advantage is that V position weight less than X position, V gun is not disabled destroyed by "event" disabling/destroing both turrets
All of this makes in RTW2 V turret the main option as it is better in every aspect and is not worse from X turret in anything.
I suggest following:
1. superimposed V position is unavailable on light cruisers till X position is invented - Enables superimposed X gun mounts on CL
2. superimposed V position is unavailable on destroyers till superimposed tech is developed - Enables superimposed gun mounts on DD
3. superimposed V position is unavailable on armoured/heavy cruisers till superimposed tech is developed - Enables superimposed turrets on CA
4. decrease substantially deck space used for AA guns when using V turret because of blast damage for V turret for positions between V and Y turret.
5. some other ideas to think about - may be some with more experience with naval construction:
a) more expensive machinery in case of V turret as V magazine disrupt magazine space and some steam lines need to be around magazines. This mean needed cooling.
b) in case of V turret magazine hit has higher effect on disabling machinery with V turret as boilers and turbines are seperated and single hit has higher chance to disable all turbines or boilers vs. mixed stuff using X instead of V turret
After that V turret will have some real disadvantage as in real life.