f105d
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by f105d on Nov 5, 2019 0:53:17 GMT -6
I don't know if this is already a thing or just somewhere else but... Why not just admire these magnificent titanic constructions of your own and others just because why not. Also legitimate question what qualifies as such in this game?
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 5, 2019 6:12:16 GMT -6
I bet you slap some diesels in that baby you can up the conning tower armor. As it is, with radar fire control in 1951, I wouldn’t wanna command that ship. No protection. Also, you really need to have 18 inch guns to defeat enemy armor if they’ve built anything in response to the belt you used. Otherwise you’re just gonna tickle the enemy ships in a shootout.
Edit: on a side note, has the AI ever built anything like that monster you did?
|
|
|
Post by BathTubAdmiral on Nov 5, 2019 6:40:47 GMT -6
Super, hmmmm ... some rather interesting design choices, but super ...
- 28kn (only - how to keep up with 32kn carriers?)
- extreme range (what for ?!?!)
- magazine box (weightsaving measure - on a BB?)
- 11.5" conning tower armour (guess you forgot to ramp it up to at least 19?)
- 1" secondary armour (guns/gun crews will get killed by HE shrapnel from bombs and low caliber shells, you need 2")
- colonial service (completely ineffective !?!)
- 17" +0 guns (you don't have better guns I presume?)
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Nov 5, 2019 7:34:51 GMT -6
I bet you slap some diesels in that baby you can up the conning tower armor. As it is, with radar fire control in 1951, I wouldn’t wanna command that ship. No protection. Also, you really need to have 18 inch guns to defeat enemy armor if they’ve built anything in response to the belt you used. Otherwise you’re just gonna tickle the enemy ships in a shootout. Edit: on a side note, has the AI ever built anything like that monster you did? Chances are, you'd still spend most of your time outside of the conning tower. It gets rather cramped at times, I'd dare say, and you miss all the magnificent sights Though RTW does certainly penalize unarmoured conning towers. Though with Extreme range this ship could certainly use some diesels. I'm inclined to disagree as far as guns are concerned, however. I find that you hardly need more than 17", although quality 0 certainly leaves something to be desired. Considering the amount of deck armour (heck, anything more and including 6,5" works), the only way to sink a ship would be in a close-range shootout, where 20" of penetration would be rather comfortable. The increase of penetration (and bursting charge, IIRC) is negligible with 18" guns, so you have to go 19" if you really need it. The question is whether or not the increased weight of heavier guns would be worth marginally better penetration and damage. Edit.: BathTubAdmiral Speed gets exponentially more expensive on ships, so it is reasonable to limit it, especially considering that battleships can have other uses than escorting carriers. Extreme range could be just roleplaying, I suppose. As for the magazine box, I believe that garrisonchisholm once made a ship with around 13" of deck and 20" of belt with magazine box, which worked out remarkably well for him. Though the 9" of deck my chafe here a bit. Your remarks on secondary armour and colonial service I obviously agree with, though (perhaps boarding actions are anticipated? ). As for my reasoning regarding guns, please see above.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 5, 2019 7:44:14 GMT -6
Super, hmmmm ... some rather interesting design choices, but super ... - magazine box (weightsaving measure - on a BB?)
- 11.5" conning tower armour (guess you forgot to ramp it up to at least 19?)
- 1" secondary armour (guns/gun crews will get killed by HE shrapnel from bombs and low caliber shells, you need 2")
Lol, totally missed those! Good catch! Yeah, that ship looks like something the Minister of the navy read in a book and wants you to build, lol. We're not picking on ya, f105d, just trying to nudge you toward building a better ship. Long range is all you need to go into foreign waters with no base for a few turns to take the battle to enemy home waters. Extreme range is wasting tonnage imo. Magazine box halves your belt and deck armor values over anything that's not a critical space. So you're ship will get shot up pretty bad with that. Deck in excess of 7.5 inches in RTW2 is wasted tonnage. NOTHING will penetrate a 7.5 inch deck. That's not the case for turret tops, tho. Armor those bad boys up. Conning tower armor protects your bridge and control. There are massive penalties when this is hit. I protect it like my turrets. Secondary armor is an interesting gambit to run with only 2 inches which protects from splinters. I usually look for the upper limit of penetration of 6 inch guns at 8 or 9 thousand yards and armor them up so they dont get knocked out by passing destroyer torpedo runs. GL with those ships!
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 5, 2019 7:56:10 GMT -6
I'm inclined to disagree as far as guns are concerned, however. I find that you hardly need more than 17" Why? Because the AI doesnt build big enough ships in response to what you build? Every game you never face an enemy BB with sufficient belt to resist pens at your optimal range band. This is true and is a shortcoming of this game. It would be nice if RTW2's AI was smart enough to actually build a ship in RESPONSE to something we build. Or outfit it's dive bombers with bombs that will defeat our deck designs. But it isn't. It doesnt do any of that. Instead it uses templates. And all of those templates are predicated on the Washington Naval Treaty being in place which we all know sometimes never happens in our games. And had that treaty not been in place, the escalation of Battleships would never have abated and carriers would likely not have been built till far later than they were. But because the game's templates do not assume the lack of this treaty, we are stuck with smallish battleships and battlecruisers that rarely get up in tonnage and the AI instead devotes their budget to carriers and support ships. But I'm redoing those templates supposing there isn't a Washington Naval Treaty and these Battleships the AI will build will actually challenge your biggest designs... if you're into using mods. Otherwise, you're stuck with small Battleships that only saw the light of day between 1937-1942.
|
|
|
Post by cogsandspigots on Nov 5, 2019 8:14:47 GMT -6
I'm inclined to disagree as far as guns are concerned, however. I find that you hardly need more than 17" Why? Because the AI doesnt build big enough ships in response to what you build? Every game you never face an enemy BB with sufficient belt to resist pens at your optimal range band. This is true and is a shortcoming of this game. It would be nice if RTW2's AI was smart enough to actually build a ship in RESPONSE to something we build. Or outfit it's dive bombers with bombs that will defeat our deck designs. But it isn't. It doesnt do any of that. Instead it uses templates. And all of those templates are predicated on the Washington Naval Treaty being in place which we all know sometimes never happens in our games. And had that treaty not been in place, the escalation of Battleships would never have abated and carriers would likely not have been built till far later than they were. But because the game's templates do not assume the lack of this treaty, we are stuck with smallish battleships and battlecruisers that rarely get up in tonnage and the AI instead devotes their budget to carriers and support ships. But I'm redoing those templates supposing there isn't a Washington Naval Treaty and these Battleships the AI will build will actually challenge your biggest designs... if you're into using mods. Otherwise, you're stuck with small Battleships that only saw the light of day between 1937-1942. I HIGHLY recommend the additional battleship templates mod. The AI makes some monstrosities that could actually blow up your super battleships. I can’t post it now, but I saw Britain make a 67000 ton BB with 8 20 inch guns.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 5, 2019 8:23:18 GMT -6
Why? Because the AI doesnt build big enough ships in response to what you build? Every game you never face an enemy BB with sufficient belt to resist pens at your optimal range band. This is true and is a shortcoming of this game. It would be nice if RTW2's AI was smart enough to actually build a ship in RESPONSE to something we build. Or outfit it's dive bombers with bombs that will defeat our deck designs. But it isn't. It doesnt do any of that. Instead it uses templates. And all of those templates are predicated on the Washington Naval Treaty being in place which we all know sometimes never happens in our games. And had that treaty not been in place, the escalation of Battleships would never have abated and carriers would likely not have been built till far later than they were. But because the game's templates do not assume the lack of this treaty, we are stuck with smallish battleships and battlecruisers that rarely get up in tonnage and the AI instead devotes their budget to carriers and support ships. But I'm redoing those templates supposing there isn't a Washington Naval Treaty and these Battleships the AI will build will actually challenge your biggest designs... if you're into using mods. Otherwise, you're stuck with small Battleships that only saw the light of day between 1937-1942. I HIGHLY recommend the additional battleship templates mod. The AI makes some monstrosities that could actually blow up your super battleships. I can’t post it now, but I saw Britain make a 67000 ton BB with 8 20 inch guns. That was my experience. When I first used hipper's mod, it went into every game I played after that. Fundamentally changes the experience of the game in a better way. So when I'm done redoing his mod, you'll see more of the same of what his offered, but find much more diversity. Here's an example of an enemy BB in my game built in 1937: If squaring off against this ship doesn't get your blood going, nothing will.
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Nov 5, 2019 8:40:14 GMT -6
I'm inclined to disagree as far as guns are concerned, however. I find that you hardly need more than 17" Why? Because the AI doesnt build big enough ships in response to what you build? Every game you never face an enemy BB with sufficient belt to resist pens at your optimal range band. This is true and is a shortcoming of this game. It would be nice if RTW2's AI was smart enough to actually build a ship in RESPONSE to something we build. Or outfit it's dive bombers with bombs that will defeat our deck designs. But it isn't. It doesnt do any of that. Instead it uses templates. And all of those templates are predicated on the Washington Naval Treaty being in place which we all know sometimes never happens in our games. And had that treaty not been in place, the escalation of Battleships would never have abated and carriers would likely not have been built till far later than they were. But because the game's templates do not assume the lack of this treaty, we are stuck with smallish battleships and battlecruisers that rarely get up in tonnage and the AI instead devotes their budget to carriers and support ships. But I'm redoing those templates supposing there isn't a Washington Naval Treaty and these Battleships the AI will build will actually challenge your biggest designs... if you're into using mods. Otherwise, you're stuck with small Battleships that only saw the light of day between 1937-1942. I believe I did explain my reasoning in the following sentence - the increases in penetration are negligible. Assuming all guns are Q1, 17" inch guns can beat 19" of armour up to 11k yards (I'll give ranges inclusive), 18" and 19" guns up to 12k yards, 20" guns up to 13k yards. Assuming 20" of armour, 17" up to 10k, 18" up to 11k, 19" and 20" up to 12k. And consider that the impact of increased gun calibre on shell penetration seems the greatest in the 10-14/15k yard band. Personally, I don't believe that 1-2k yards of extra range is worth the weight, especially that the band is so narrow that you'll struggle to remain at the advantageous distance all the time, especially considering the penetration values are given in the ideal conditions. That said, if you absolutely need more penetration, I find that 19" guns are better, considering the increased effectiveness against 20" armour. This written with the assumption of ~1950 and up-to-date technology. Otherwise, YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 5, 2019 8:56:27 GMT -6
In 1939, the range bands are no so far off. I see what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Nov 5, 2019 9:15:02 GMT -6
In 1939, the range bands are no so far off. I see what you are saying. That said, the extra penetration on heavier guns can serve to mitigate to some extent the imperfect battlefield conditions that I mentioned, giving you somewhat larger margin of error. But it's rather difficult to quantify something like that. But definitely, if with the mod AI builds many ships like you posted, guns below and perhaps even including 16" are out of the question for larger investments, and 18-19" might be a safer and a more reliable pick than 17", especially if there are no Q1 17" guns available. That said, I'll remain a proponent of a large volume of reasonably powerful fire.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 5, 2019 9:42:48 GMT -6
I like 18 inch guns, 17 are my fav, when the quality is good, and 19 and 20 tend to fire too slow and weigh too much. I dont often use them.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 5, 2019 10:07:23 GMT -6
28kn (only - how to keep up with 32kn carriers?) Who says f105d's carriers are good for 32 knots?
Beyond that, I generally agree with griffin01's remark on speed - going fast is very expensive, and the faster you go, the more expensive it gets. 28 knots is good enough for a battleship for pretty much any purpose short of escorting faster carriers, and I tend to find that my battleships only rarely end up as carrier escorts even long after developing the tech that allows them to do that. Beyond the direct cost of making the battleship faster, there's also an indirect cost inasmuch as a fast ship wants faster escorts, so if your battleships and carriers are good for 30 or 32 knots then your cruisers probably ought to be good for at least 33 knots and your destroyers probably at least 35 or 36 knots.
It's not completely ineffective - it'll still count for 25% more station tonnage than it would without colonial service, and if the ship is assigned to Foreign Stations so as to cover all station requirements rather than being left in the Active Fleet to cover just one sea zone then that 25% more tonnage might actually be relevant, depending on what f105d's overall station tonnage requirements are. The problem with fitting a ship such as this for Colonial Service is more that this is a very inefficient ship to use for foreign station fulfillment in the first place, plus a battleship as powerful as this is a very valuable asset and if you leave it on FS you're not going to be able to count on having it where you want it.
With 9" of deck armor and Extreme Range I'd be looking to save weight somewhere, too. Granted, I'd probably first look at cutting Extreme Range back down to Medium or maybe Long since Medium is good enough for pretty much everything short of dedicated surface raiders.
1" still provides some protection against splinters and secondary guns are noncritical. I'd certainly prefer 2" for full protection against splinters, myself, but 1" isn't a dealbreaker.
Honestly, I'm more concerned by the inclusion of the 5" DP battery - it's considerably smaller than the 6" autoloading DP battery, and with the way DP batteries stack for HAA factor (HAAF) I'm inclined to suspect that the 5" DP battery is of at best marginal benefit for anti-aircraft purposes - last I checked, autoloading 6" DP batteries had about 50% more HAAF per gun than non-autoloading 5" DP batteries so the 6" battery is worth ~4.5 times as much HAAF as the 5" battery, and I'm pretty sure that that puts it well into the range where adding in the 5" DP battery actually reduces the overall HAAF.
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Nov 5, 2019 10:23:17 GMT -6
Personally I don't tend to build "superbattleships" (as in, oversized and overgunned). In fact my battleships tend to be very compact and almost fit into london treaty limitations, usually hovering around 37 000-40 000 tons of displacement. Sometimes goes up to around 45 000 tons, but anything bigger than that usually appears for a roleplaying reason. Strategically never had the need to build anything larger, as I can fit a balanced and fairly powerful, while still somewhat affordable, design in that displacement range.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 5, 2019 14:20:04 GMT -6
I took the liberty of duplicating the original ship design in Springsharp. NOTE: This ship as built will not fit through the Panama Canal. I hope the game portrays this accurately.
|
|