|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Sept 16, 2015 15:41:13 GMT -6
As it stands now, battlecruisers are the best ship to build for a navy with a tight budget. They can (and are) used for patrolling, and can be used in the battlefleet. The only real issue is that ship sizes (and hence unit prices) will very rapidly escalate. Individual unit prices will be quite a bit higher than battleships, but they seem to count toward battleships and battle/heavy cruisers for the dreaded "not enough ships" event. Of course, if they run into a modern proper battle line, they may have problems, but in every other instance, battlecruisers are the way to go. That kinda annoys me, because I was advocating battleships and light cruisers for the fleet, and a complete abandoning of battle/heavy/armoured cruisers. But you can't do that without being fired.  Cheers Bruce |
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90 
|
Post by krawa on Sept 17, 2015 3:48:24 GMT -6
I'm not sure I understand the Intention of your post. Are you unhappy that BCs are more important than you want them to be? And why do you get fired if you don't build them?
If I'm not mistaken BCs count as battleships in the "not enough ships" Events (along with B and BB), while for the cruiser Event only CA and CL count. So you don't Need to build BC/CAs because of Events.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabratha on Sept 17, 2015 4:55:36 GMT -6
The "not enough ships" event is a bit of an annoyance in the sense that it delivers a heavy blow to the player (often out of the blue) without any intermediate softer hitting events. This can be especially tough for the poorer nations out there.
As for BCs being the most economic - I don't think so. I played France and by the early 1920s France is desperately low on funds and struggles to keep up with other powers.
What I found worked best was to build slow 21 knots, short range small BBs. Best bang for the least buck. Obvious downside is no commerce raiding capacity, but I found it a decent sacrifice to be mad ein terms of low funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Sept 17, 2015 7:20:01 GMT -6
The "not enough ships" event is a bit of an annoyance in the sense that it delivers a heavy blow to the player (often out of the blue) without any intermediate softer hitting events. This can be especially tough for the poorer nations out there. As for BCs being the most economic - I don't think so. I played France and by the early 1920s France is desperately low on funds and struggles to keep up with other powers. What I found worked best was to build slow 21 knots, short range small BBs. Best bang for the least buck. Obvious downside is no commerce raiding capacity, but I found it a decent sacrifice to be mad ein terms of low funds. Don't you get hit with the battlecruiser version of "not enough ships"? I've seen the AI get hit with it, even with a reasonable battle line. The problem with building both battleships and battle/heavy cruisers is that the combined cost is higher than just building good quality battlecruisers. Battlecruisers can serve as a light battleline and a patrol ship. "Not enough ships" more or less forces you to build battle/heavy cruisers any way. Heavy cruisers will get squashed by the AI's battlecruisers, so you gotta follow suit with battlecruisers of your own. Might as well build good 'uns and drop the battleship half of the duo. What I'm saying is that building battlecruisers stops both variants of "not enough ships" and fills both battle line and patrol roles. I don't actually agree with that sort of fleet personally, but the way the game is structured, it's the most economical way of building a fleet with comparatively small budgets. Cheers Bruce |
|
|
|
Post by tmp on Sept 17, 2015 12:57:06 GMT -6
Don't you get hit with the battlecruiser version of "not enough ships"? I've seen the AI get hit with it, even with a reasonable battle line. I haven't seen such an event in two games in which I didn't have more than 2-3 battle-cruisers (and as such I don't even quite know what you're talking about) so it'd seem either the event is pretty rare, or doesn't take much to stop from popping up, or both. |
|
jma286
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jma286 on Sept 17, 2015 12:58:01 GMT -6
The "not enough ships" event is a bit of an annoyance in the sense that it delivers a heavy blow to the player (often out of the blue) without any intermediate softer hitting events. This can be especially tough for the poorer nations out there. As for BCs being the most economic - I don't think so. I played France and by the early 1920s France is desperately low on funds and struggles to keep up with other powers. What I found worked best was to build slow 21 knots, short range small BBs. Best bang for the least buck. Obvious downside is no commerce raiding capacity, but I found it a decent sacrifice to be mad ein terms of low funds. Don't you get hit with the battlecruiser version of "not enough ships"? I've seen the AI get hit with it, even with a reasonable battle line. The problem with building both battleships and battle/heavy cruisers is that the combined cost is higher than just building good quality battlecruisers. Battlecruisers can serve as a light battleline and a patrol ship. "Not enough ships" more or less forces you to build battle/heavy cruisers any way. Heavy cruisers will get squashed by the AI's battlecruisers, so you gotta follow suit with battlecruisers of your own. Might as well build good 'uns and drop the battleship half of the duo. What I'm saying is that building battlecruisers stops both variants of "not enough ships" and fills both battle line and patrol roles. I don't actually agree with that sort of fleet personally, but the way the game is structured, it's the most economical way of building a fleet with comparatively small budgets. Cheers Bruce The problem is that a 30,000 ton BC is more expensive than a BB of the same tonnage, while being more fragile. That machinery is expensive, and comes at the cost of protection. By the late game (1930), I can build a 40,000 ton BB with a 21 knot top speed, 12*16" guns, 14" of Belt and turret armor, and 4" of deck armor for 5,000,000 a turn. Meanwhile, a 52,000 ton BC costs 7,000,000 a turn and to have its 29 knot top speed I can only give it 10*16" guns, 12" of narrow belt armor, 14" of turret armor and 4" of deck armor. So I'm paying 2 million more per turn to build a ship whose only advantage is speed, and advantage that quickly dwindles once the 15 and 16 inch guns of opposing BBs and BCs rip through its skimpy belt armor. And if I wanted to splurge and build a 52,000 ton BB, I could pack 10*17" guns, 16.5-17" belt and turret armor, 4.5" deck armor, and STILL have a 21 knot top speed, all for the price of 6,200,000. BCs have their place but if I was a smaller power I would always choose a BB unless I already had plenty. |
|
sage2
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by sage2 on Sept 17, 2015 15:44:50 GMT -6
I basically don't build BCs. I have in 1 or 2 of my 7 games, but I just don't like them. I prefer building very heavy and upgradeables ACs as early as possible. I've never been hit with a prestige penalty around BCs.
|
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Sept 17, 2015 18:29:18 GMT -6
I tend to build very light BC's of 16-18 thousand tons, armed with 2x3 11-12" guns, this is enough to deal with enemy cruisers and battle cruisers, while not being too expensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabratha on Sept 18, 2015 4:39:07 GMT -6
Heavy cruisers will get squashed by the AI's battlecruisers, so you gotta follow suit with battlecruisers of your own. Might as well build good 'uns and drop the battleship half of the duo. What I'm saying is that building battlecruisers stops both variants of "not enough ships" and fills both battle line and patrol roles. I had some games and some wars that made me think that way. I had some wars as teh US which pretty much werew all about commerce raiding, with submarines and BCs doing all the work. At the same time the BBs not firing a single shot, not appearing in even 1 battle. BBs were worth nothing, BC woirth their weight in gold. But then I had a war (as Japan) with Russia in the 1920s and ended up fighting half a dozen fleet battles, big convoy atatck with BBs and some shore bombardement which ended up a capital ship combat. In that war Russia lost 5 capital ships, all fo them BCs. Russian BBs got some heavy damage in some battles, but always failed to sink, always managed to get to port. In taht war BCs were worth very little, BBs worth their weight in gold. So my point is: curcumstances can vary a lot. If you have a home province with an enemy home province, then BBs will usually be needed. |
|
|
|
Post by rhetoric on Sept 20, 2015 16:01:22 GMT -6
In my personal experience, BCs may be worth it in small numbers, because they seem to be selected in missions where battleships of either kind either won't or are unlikely to appear, and unless you have really great cruisers, you run the risk of getting creamed by a much more powerful unit.
|
|
