|
Post by pashahlis on Nov 2, 2019 18:41:48 GMT -6
Title.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Nov 2, 2019 18:53:24 GMT -6
Build a carrier. Add 14" wing turrets.
|
|
|
Post by pashahlis on Nov 2, 2019 19:15:28 GMT -6
Build a carrier. Add 14" wing turrets. Is there no way to get a similar layout to thw Ise-class?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 2, 2019 19:43:29 GMT -6
Is there no way to get a similar layout to thw Ise-class? Design a battleship without V/W/X/Y turrets, slap on a pair of catapults, and add 20 or 30 seaplanes:
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Nov 2, 2019 21:00:07 GMT -6
A thread on the matter can be found here: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/3615/battlecarriers-rtw2A guide for making battlecarriers, posted by tbr: 1) Start a BC, CA or BB design LARGER than 16000tons 2) provide it with all the centerline turrets, secondaries and tertiaries you want 3) switch to CVL type and name the design 4) add flight deck and planes 5) finalize design with armor, torpedo defence etc. 6) when you try to save the design a dialogue will tell you that the design does not conform to CVL characteristics and asks whether you want to adjust type and continue 7) choose "No" in the dialogue 8) the design will be saved and you are asked whether you want to pay for the full design process 9) you will be able to build this "CVL" and put aircraft on it, it will be selected for battles and operate in them wiht CVL AI
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 2, 2019 22:09:47 GMT -6
A thread on the matter can be found here: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/3615/battlecarriers-rtw2A guide for making battlecarriers, posted by tbr: 1) Start a BC, CA or BB design LARGER than 16000tons 2) provide it with all the centerline turrets, secondaries and tertiaries you want 3) switch to CVL type and name the design 4) add flight deck and planes 5) finalize design with armor, torpedo defence etc. 6) when you try to save the design a dialogue will tell you that the design does not conform to CVL characteristics and asks whether you want to adjust type and continue 7) choose "No" in the dialogue 8) the design will be saved and you are asked whether you want to pay for the full design process 9) you will be able to build this "CVL" and put aircraft on it, it will be selected for battles and operate in them wiht CVL AI That's awesome!
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 3, 2019 0:45:08 GMT -6
Couple things here... Yeah you can make a BBV. Whoohoo. But it's expensive as hell. Like crazy expensive. To offset the cost, you can build these monsters in only 21 months. I'd almost call that a bug, which it is because it lets you build over tonnage CVLs, but the cost is horrific. And quite frankly, these ships are awful compromises. In any shootout they'll likely take damage to the unarmored hanger through the hangar walls and flight deck which are too expensive displacement wise to armor. And that stuff causes fires. So while you've got yourself a nifty pocket battleship built in 21 months with a jiffy 8-20 or so air wing, it's the Hindenburg on a float waiting to happen all over again In the case of the BCV, I had the flight deck worked out, but it resizes the ship when you say no to converting it from a CVL. So the guns scrunch up crowding the flight deck. I only realized after this design I didnt need the third elevator. So I probably should redo the drawing. I didnt even bother to put an elevator on the BBV. I probably won't ever use these designs because carriers, by their very nature, are incendiary ships that just really want to burn. So even though the 21 turn build is sweet, the downsides are awful. If battle carriers were an actual class in a future patch with lowered chance of catching fire and able to put the flight deck under the main Deck, behind the main belt and not have a flight deck and hangar walls.... then maybe.
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Nov 3, 2019 2:43:13 GMT -6
Have tried a few different builds but have yet to come across anything which isn't a bit of a pain in the backside to use.
Either due to the AI turning into the wind at inopportune times, weather/light conditions rendering half the ship useless or the immense weight of deck armour being a massive burden.
If it's spotting you're after carrying a few more float planes is much easier!
Have been having some joy with a 'Support CV' build though a 30,000t CV that sacrifices 1/3rd of its air wing for protection and firepower with the remaining airing being heavily fighter based for heavy cap and fleet protection.
Although I'm still playing on 1.09 so don't know if the new spawn locations would make that less viable.
|
|
|
Post by tapper on Nov 3, 2019 3:09:47 GMT -6
Ive been experimenting with them in my last several games. Most of the time they just end up being extremely expensive carriers and rarely every use their guns. But where I've found them effective is in hunting down carrier squadrons when my main force stumbles on them. They're usually more than capable of outrunning my battle line and with my BCs usually playing footsie with their opposites, too far off to arrive before they disappear. Many an enemy carrier failed to escape thanks to having them on hand.
Though its probably more down to my play style and the fact I stopped building CLs at all that I need them to do this.
Design them less as Battleships and more as oversized CA/ under armed BC for best results in my experience.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Nov 3, 2019 4:26:51 GMT -6
The problem with this approach is that the ships get the "CVL" AI and battle manager assignment. If these ships would be used by the batle manager like BC/CA and participate in smaller battles as the main ship they couls really shine, especially on foreign station. Just imagine having this design tasked with coastal bombardment, two escort DD and an opposition of two BC/CA with a sundry of CL and DD.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Nov 3, 2019 9:17:22 GMT -6
Build a carrier. Add 14" wing turrets. Is there no way to get a similar layout to thw Ise-class? The Ise class wasn't so much a battlecarrier class (in terms of being able to field wheeled fighters and bombers) as it was a battleship class with an outsized complement of seaplanes for scouting/spotting. I'll often turn an early BC that's over the tonnage limit for a CVL, but not big enough to be a worthwhile CV, into such a ship by removing a turret and adding aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Nov 3, 2019 9:24:43 GMT -6
Ive been experimenting with them in my last several games. Most of the time they just end up being extremely expensive carriers and rarely every use their guns. But where I've found them effective is in hunting down carrier squadrons when my main force stumbles on them. They're usually more than capable of outrunning my battle line and with my BCs usually playing footsie with their opposites, too far off to arrive before they disappear. Many an enemy carrier failed to escape thanks to having them on hand.
Though its probably more down to my play style and the fact I stopped building CLs at all that I need them to do this.
Design them less as Battleships and more as oversized CA/ under armed BC for best results in my experience.
That's certainly a handsome set of ships, tapper.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 3, 2019 10:31:07 GMT -6
Ive been experimenting with them in my last several games. Most of the time they just end up being extremely expensive carriers and rarely every use their guns. But where I've found them effective is in hunting down carrier squadrons when my main force stumbles on them. They're usually more than capable of outrunning my battle line and with my BCs usually playing footsie with their opposites, too far off to arrive before they disappear. Many an enemy carrier failed to escape thanks to having them on hand.
Though its probably more down to my play style and the fact I stopped building CLs at all that I need them to do this.
Design them less as Battleships and more as oversized CA/ under armed BC for best results in my experience.
That's certainly a handsome set of ships, tapper . Yeah, that's what I was thinking... but I'm really not a fan of the Y runway. Anyway you look at it you're either too short in take off or landing distance and the center bridge superstructure blocks the airflow needed to land. Planes would come in to land and as soon as they'd hit the obstructed airflow that the superstructure blocked from coming over the bow, the plane would drop like a rock. So on a BCV, I always try and get the superstructure to the left or right of the strip even a barbette is a bad idea, so no super-firing turrets. Gotta keep it low. But tapper can draw, man!
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 3, 2019 11:06:10 GMT -6
The problem with this approach is that the ships get the "CVL" AI and battle manager assignment. If these ships would be used by the batle manager like BC/CA and participate in smaller battles as the main ship they couls really shine, especially on foreign station. Just imagine having this design tasked with coastal bombardment, two escort DD and an opposition of two BC/CA with a sundry of CL and DD. You might be able to try them out with BB/BC/CA AI and OOB assignment if you change the ShipType line in the design file appropriately. I don't know what it'd do with the air group, though.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 3, 2019 11:09:52 GMT -6
Ok, gents. The old man is stupid. Why are we trying to build hybrid battleship/carriers which in a tactical sense are almost useless. Educate me, if you please.
|
|