Why..?

[gkacper]

SPOILER: Click to show

Picture says everything. I know it's a bit early to build AA cruisers (as it's 1936 in-game) but IRL Brits started building their AA cruisers, the Dido class a year later (october 1937) and Americans the Atlantas in 1940, why then the game won't allow me to build them? (Some of the Dido class cruisers were built with 4" guns due to shortage of 5.25" guns).

I have tried multiple configurations, with everything between 8000 and 6500t displacement and nothing works. My game version is 1.15 (newest one).

[stevethecat]

The game really drags its heels when it comes to CL tech, you can build post WW2 super BBs in 1930 but good luck having the tech to build anything but single barrel ww1 style cruisers until nigh on 1950.

[dorn]

The issue here is 4" belt, which is not allowed on light cruisers (possible up to 3" belt).

And as ship has only 4" main guns it cannot be identified as heavy cruiser.

[gkacper]

Oh, thank you! CLs in general are ridiculous. If you try to design a LNT light cruiser (e.g. Town class, Brooklyn class) it always makes them CAs.

[Fredrik W]

Jan 24, 2020 7:40:56 GMT -6 gkacper said:

Oh, thank you! CLs in general are ridiculous. If you try to design a LNT light cruiser (e.g. Town class, Brooklyn class) it always makes them CAs.

Before 1935 (the London Naval Treaty) it does so, yes.

[bakara]

I have never had issues building period specific CL's, the problem comes from the sudden massive growth post-LNT of which really makes the two kinds completely different breeds.

[aeson]

Jan 24, 2020 10:35:55 GMT -6 Fredrik W said:

Before 1935 (the London Naval Treaty) it does so, yes.

Ironically, in history it's actually the Second (1936) London Naval Treaty which limited light cruiser displacement to 8,000 tons; the Washington Naval Treaty only has "cruisers," and while the First (1930) London Naval Treaty made explicit a distinction between and separately limited the aggregate displacement of what we know as "light" and "heavy" cruisers it did not set a per-ship displacement limit for light cruisers as distinct from heavy cruisers. As a result, the initial wave of Treatymax (~10,000t) light cruisers - the British Town, Japanese Mogami, and American Brooklyn and St Louis classes - get laid down in the 1931-1936 period in part as a result of the First London Naval Treaty preventing the big naval powers from building more heavy cruisers, then the second wave of Treatymax (~8,000t) light cruisers - the British Crown Colony and French La Galissonniere classes - get laid down in roughly the 1937-1940 period, then the Second London Treaty's escalator clauses start getting invoked as the international situation sours in the late '30s and the third wave of Treatymax (~10,000t) light cruisers - the American Cleveland and the planned French De Grasse classes - gets laid down starting in 1939-1940, and then the Second World War more or less rips apart what little was left of the arms limitation treaty system.

Oh, thank you! CLs in general are ridiculous. If you try to design a LNT light cruiser (e.g. Town class, Brooklyn class) it always makes them CAs.

That a 10,000t 6" cruiser is "light" while a 10,000t 8" cruiser is "heavy" despite both cruisers having similar levels of protection and being intended for the same roles is almost entirely arbitrary; the only real reason for it is that the 1930 London Naval Treaty created separate aggregate displacement limits for 6" and 8" cruisers. Had the historical cruisers been developed and classified in the absence of the Treaties, big 6" cruisers such as the Towns and the Brooklyns would be in the same category as the big 8" cruisers rather than being in the same category as the ~5" and small 6" cruisers like the Atlanta, Dido, and Arethusa classes.

[avimimus]

Jan 24, 2020 10:58:00 GMT -6 bakara said:

I have never had issues building period specific CL's, the problem comes from the sudden massive growth post-LNT of which really makes the two kinds completely different breeds.

How do you feel about CL speeds?

[bakara]

Can be a bit tricky to design the lightning fast cruiser designs but overall I think I usually reach the correct speeds but was awhile since I played into the post ww1 era so will double check in a old save as britain from -37.

edit: While poking around I remembered that I usually don’t take the listed max speeds for ships listed on Wikipedia and/or Navypedia or from my modest collection of reference material since those speeds where usually achieved under 1. light load 2. optimal conditions 3. brand new machinery. But the speeds we give ships in RTW2 are closer to what is achieved during wartime which is something we should be on the same page about since it makes quite a big difference.

[aeson]

Also, if you're trying to recreate historical ships within the game, it's worth bearing in mind that full load displacement is probably a better match for the in-game displacement than standard displacement is, even though a number of the in-game limits were fairly clearly set to match standard displacement limits defined by the treaties.

[kriegsmeister]

Jan 25, 2020 19:14:59 GMT -6 aeson said:

Also, if you're trying to recreate historical ships within the game, it's worth bearing in mind that full load displacement is probably a better match for the in-game displacement than standard displacement is, even though a number of the in-game limits were fairly clearly set to match standard displacement limits defined by the treaties.

I never really went into matching historical designs, but if this is the case, Fredrik should definitely look into changing the displacement limits to match the average full load rather than standard displacement. Especially for cruisers as that is the one thing I do struggle to get things similar or stronger to treaty era cruisers.

[dorn]

Another issue is the speed. Usually cruisers built after 1920 has speed 31 knots and usually even more. In game going over 30 knots usually costs a lot of more tonnage and question of costs of 1 knot speed is questionable in combat.

[aeson]

Jan 25, 2020 20:27:00 GMT -6 kriegsmeister said:

Jan 25, 2020 19:14:59 GMT -6 aeson said:

Also, if you're trying to recreate historical ships within the game, it's worth bearing in mind that full load displacement is probably a better match for the in-game displacement than standard displacement is, even though a number of the in-game limits were fairly clearly set to match standard displacement limits defined by the treaties.

I never really went into matching historical designs, but if this is the case, Fredrik should definitely look into changing the displacement limits to match the average full load rather than standard displacement. Especially for cruisers as that is the one thing I do struggle to get things similar or stronger to treaty era cruisers.

The big ~10,000t light cruisers mostly have to be built as CAs since most of them have more than the 3" maximum belt armor allowed to CLs in the game and the smaller light cruisers mostly fit within the game's displacement limits for CLs, so I don't really agree.