|
Post by akinesia on Jan 20, 2020 13:58:14 GMT -6
First thing I love this game!!!!!!
Trade protection?
Does it matter what zone the ships are in when i put them in trade protection?
Is there a benefit for using larger ship types ie. CL or Ca?
Is there a need for more than the minimum number of shipsm
Raiders?
Do they need to be put in the zone i want to raid?
If they need to be in the zone to raid does having multiple raiders in one zone help?
Many thanks for any help and Rule the Waves
|
|
|
Post by captainloggy on Jan 20, 2020 14:06:44 GMT -6
For trade protection, you're basically combatting two forms of commerce warfare. Against submarines, location doesn't matter. Against surface raiders (if they are used in sufficient quantity to seriously annoy you), you need to have cruisers on trade protection in the same sea zone as the raider to thwart or intercept it, though there is also a (slimmer)chance that a cruiser on AF does that. You only need more ships than required if the enemy's trade warfare is hurting you, though TP stance can also be used to stow away ships you don't want in battle, but still want for blockade/invasion points. Raiders sink merchants in the zone they're in. Hotspots are the enemy's home zone and Northern Europe. Multiple raiders do sink more shipping in sum, I don't know if there is a per capita (per nautica?) reduction in kills, though. Enjoy the game, and fair seas!
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Jan 20, 2020 14:12:11 GMT -6
Hello and welcome! No, TP is "global".
That depends largely on your playstyle, what kind of forces would you utilize, what kind of technologies and funds do you have access to; and to a certain extent on the battle generator. I'm not entirely certain I understood your question correctly.
Do you mean the TP or FS quota for example? For FS, by and large none. For TP, strictly speaking you don't have to use more ships, but you might want to go over the necessary number by a bit for additional ASW and also to immediately replace the losses without having to wait for new ships while under the quota.
Yes, that's correct. In fact, raiding is generally advised to be done en-masse, so rather go with a lot of cheap, quasi-disposable ships than a few ""good"" raiders.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jan 20, 2020 14:22:01 GMT -6
One of the strategy guides by myself talks about cruiser raiders. Its over at: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/4319/c4-complex-considerations-cruiser-configurations>>>> ASW TP can be well done with corvettes as discussed in another of my guides at: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/4236/corvettes-say-hello-little-friends>>>>> For ASW the TP ships can be anywhere. I do tend to disperse them as they help in some ways for foreign service or the odd random battle. For surface raiders its best not to be in the enemy home zone where there will be much higher dice rolls of them being intercepted by their plentiful AF ships. As far as I know it doesnt matter too much what sea zone your surface raiders are in. The exception being once the enemy does commit a big cruiser to trade protection to hunt them the more scattered your raiders are the more places they have to hide by being in more seas. For hunting raiders you do need your interceptor to be in the same sea zone. Odds of intercept are better if its on TP, has a plane and is higher speed. I have at times even had my raiders count as blockading Italy when they sailed all their navy off around Africa. <shrug>
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Jan 20, 2020 14:37:21 GMT -6
...though TP stance can also be used to stow away ships you don't want in battle, but still want for blockade/invasion points... Do ships on TP count towards blockade/invasion totals or will only ships in AF status be applied? I usually keep older DD's and KE's to use on TP but scrap old, larger units when beyond practical rebuilding. Should these larger units be mothballed and used on TP in Invasion attempts? Would they be drawn into Invasion combat?
|
|
|
Post by captainloggy on Jan 20, 2020 15:28:43 GMT -6
Ships on AF and TP count for points, they only get into battles if there aren't enough AF ships around.
|
|
|
Post by akinesia on Jan 20, 2020 16:55:35 GMT -6
Thanks you al for the help. I have been reading the Cruiser post nand it is really awesome. I am looking at building some small cheap cruisers for raiding.
I will check out the Corvette post next.
Again thanks for all of the help and Rule the Waves!
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 22, 2020 12:04:49 GMT -6
But in capital ships no expense may be spared, each turret must be completely immune to its own guns at point blank range. That's right, I don't care if your battlecruisers armor can only block 10" guns, if it has 16" guns its turrets are going to stop 16" shells. End of story, no argument allowed. I do not agree with this. Protect turrets of 16" guns battleship against her on guns in point blank range is waste of resources. It costs tremendeous amount of money without much effect as battleship should never allow enemy ship to close the distance. Relating to battlecruiser there can be even other arguments. As time progress and if some own ships blow up, procedures and engineering of turrets improves meaning chance of blowing magazine after turret hits realy very minimal. In this case for battlecruisers speed could be more important than firepower as it means as long as your citadel is not compromised and your steering is working properly you can try to escape using speed even if several main guns are out of order. Another point is that turrets can be jammed even if shell does not penetrate its armour and no armour can help that.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jan 22, 2020 12:16:46 GMT -6
But in capital ships no expense may be spared, each turret must be completely immune to its own guns at point blank range. That's right, I don't care if your battlecruisers armor can only block 10" guns, if it has 16" guns its turrets are going to stop 16" shells. End of story, no argument allowed. I do not agree with this. Protect turrets of 16" guns battleship against her on guns in point blank range is waste of resources. It costs tremendeous amount of money without much effect as battleship should never allow enemy ship to close the distance. Relating to battlecruiser there can be even other arguments. As time progress and if some own ships blow up, procedures and engineering of turrets improves meaning chance of blowing magazine after turret hits realy very minimal. In this case for battlecruisers speed could be more important than firepower as it means as long as your citadel is not compromised and your steering is working properly you can try to escape using speed even if several main guns are out of order. Another point is that turrets can be jammed even if shell does not penetrate its armour and no armour can help that. That and literally no armor in game can stop a point blank 16" shell from mid 1920s onward.....
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jan 22, 2020 12:19:48 GMT -6
Firepower is firepower and everything needs more firepower. Remember, warships of this period are just floating artillery platforms. Use as little armor as you can get away with so you can sling as many bullets at the enemy as possible. But they also have to be really big bullets too. In order of importance. Most to least. Firepower-Armor-Secondary firepower-something to do with firepower-speed-range Armor is also relative. For instance, the armor that stops an 8" shell just helps a 16" shell fuse and explode inside the turret. If you have built a CA with the expectation of facing more enemy firepower, the solution is proactive. More. Firepower. Turrets can be reduced to splinter protection or less in these smaller combatants. But in capital ships no expense may be spared, each turret must be completely immune to its own guns at point blank range. That's right, I don't care if your battlecruisers armor can only block 10" guns, if it has 16" guns its turrets are going to stop 16" shells. End of story, no argument allowed. Speed of course is by far the least important combat attribute and so long as your cruisers are fast as the enemies fastest battleship they're safe. In point, the priorities for a Battleship are Armour>Firepower>Speed, whereas for a Battlecruiser the emphasis is Speed>Firepower>Armour. The thing is, Battlecruisers were originally intended to do to Heavy Cruisers what the Dreadnought did to the Pre-Dreadnought. Unfortunately, people tended to look at the heavy guns and try and use them in the line of battle, to which they weren't suited.
|
|
|
Post by captainloggy on Jan 22, 2020 12:36:13 GMT -6
Firepower is firepower and everything needs more firepower. Remember, warships of this period are just floating artillery platforms. Use as little armor as you can get away with so you can sling as many bullets at the enemy as possible. But they also have to be really big bullets too. In order of importance. Most to least. Firepower-Armor-Secondary firepower-something to do with firepower-speed-range Armor is also relative. For instance, the armor that stops an 8" shell just helps a 16" shell fuse and explode inside the turret. If you have built a CA with the expectation of facing more enemy firepower, the solution is proactive. More. Firepower. Turrets can be reduced to splinter protection or less in these smaller combatants. But in capital ships no expense may be spared, each turret must be completely immune to its own guns at point blank range. That's right, I don't care if your battlecruisers armor can only block 10" guns, if it has 16" guns its turrets are going to stop 16" shells. End of story, no argument allowed. Speed of course is by far the least important combat attribute and so long as your cruisers are fast as the enemies fastest battleship they're safe. A warship's purpose is indeed their main battery, but there are different ideas on how to get the main battery to have the greatest effect. You stated your own opinion on that matter, but of course someone could also design a ship prioritizing armour, with the thought of giving the main battery as much time as possible to fire or speed to get them into a desirable range to shoot. In the end, setting an order of design priorities and determining the extent of the prioritisation is something very much dependent on the player's taste and playstyle as well as the nation they are playing. Smaller nations may be better off building heavily armoured "you can't sink me"s (which also saves cost) while larger nations can allow their ships to be more, well, expendable for the reward of obliterating the enemy's fleet.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jan 22, 2020 12:59:51 GMT -6
The cruiser strategy guide talks about different concepts. The biggest gun idea is generally for battleships of which you would only have a few. Many things in a navy take being there (more smaller ships) and with the mandatory affects of budget "right sizing" the main guns is a thing.
|
|
|
Post by akinesia on Jan 23, 2020 0:21:25 GMT -6
I have found the raider crusiers to be very effective and cheap. Thanks Brygun. The colonial corvette and the minesweeper corvette are also very good in my games so far.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jan 23, 2020 11:36:16 GMT -6
I have found the raider crusiers to be very effective and cheap. Thanks Brygun. The colonial corvette and the minesweeper corvette are also very good in my games so far. Glad its working out. There are many paths to different solution sets.
|
|