|
Post by christian on Dec 16, 2021 1:59:45 GMT -6
The main point of AoN was to have enough volume to protect ship buoyancy even if everything else is flooded. That is not case of standard WW1 armour scheme of sloped deck. So AoN protect overall more volume than sloped deck.
Another thing is that AoN ships is less prone to decreasing speed by damage.
The advantage of sloped deck is that even in relatively close distance, your machinery is reasonable protected. But if ship is such condition (similar to Bismarck), it is just a wreck.
It depends on what your standard battle range is. My standard battle range after 1920 is about 15000-20000 yards. For that range AoN armour can protect citadel and I think it gives better result. If you battle range is 10000 yards than AoN cannot protect citadel and sloped deck give you some advantage however the ship will be still burning wreck if it is hit by so many shells, so advantage is a little dubious.
Before anyone calls me a metaslave this is not a "you SHOULD AND NEED to design ships like this" but rather a "if you want the absolute most performance" this is the optimal route
TLDR: turtleback only has two of the disadvantages but all of the advantages of real life but both of the disadvantages are significantly less one being flotation which is barely worse than AON and another being weight which is also barely worse than AON Aon isent really a thing as far as we know While we dont know EXACTLY how much has changed or what has changed from RTW-1 to RTW-2 we can expect its not that much and testing has matched with his (skwabies) RTW-1 statements Here is part of a quote from skwabie from discord on RTW-1 though from what discord has been able to find so far roughly matches RTW-2 Turtleback in current game terms also weights too little compared to real life compared to AON (AON is too heavy and sloped deck is too light) and the flotation penalty is rather small/irrelevant in addition to that non penetrating hits on the deck after penetrating belt dont cause structure damage like on bismarck which they should Further information regarding how armor schemes work can be found maxmartin.home.blog/assembly-mod-update-2/picture posted is of a BC design from the discord by Alekan (arguably one of the best designs possible in game as of this current time) it has 17 inches belt armor (7 inches deck to protect against the heaviest AP bombs so its immune to bombs) 4 inch BE to protect against all medium caliber HE and small caliber AP to reduce flooding damage taken even though its 1942 it is classified as a BC due to only having 7 guns instead of 8 this means it can technically count as a BC according to game logic but its still 27 knots so it gets favorable battle generator conditions (on top of being BC) high turret armor means its practically impossible to knock out the guns and it has long range and diesel for reliability and acceleration If you want design recommendations or deep dives into mechanics of the game and how armor battle generator and a bunch of other things work and are calculated i highly recommend checking out the RTW discord where alot of this has been EXTREMELY deeply explored Including a spreadsheet which has hit and chances on every single part of a ship over thousands of hits with one for each armor scheme
|
|
f105d
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by f105d on Dec 26, 2021 15:55:57 GMT -6
I have some questions regarding Magazine Boxes. First up is how are they modeled and what do they represent in terms of protection? And secondly how accurate are they for later ship designs and keeping the displacement down on ships that seem to balloon out of control without it? I would rather not build Battlecruisers that are already grazing the 70,000-ton range in the 1930s compared to their 48,000-ton predecessors from 1920 despite the same armament. And related to that what are the thoughts on these two "Battlecruiser" Designs and how I should proceed with the designs? Along with that should I cut off the Extended Belt armor seeing as how it reduces all those rather annoying rudder jams or feed water hits?
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Dec 26, 2021 23:30:16 GMT -6
I have some questions regarding Magazine Boxes. First up is how are they modeled and what do they represent in terms of protection? And secondly how accurate are they for later ship designs and keeping the displacement down on ships that seem to balloon out of control without it? I would rather not build Battlecruisers that are already grazing the 70,000-ton range in the 1930s compared to their 48,000-ton predecessors from 1920 despite the same armament. And related to that what are the thoughts on these two "Battlecruiser" Designs and how I should proceed with the designs? Along with that should I cut off the Extended Belt armor seeing as how it reduces all those rather annoying rudder jams or feed water hits? <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> Officially box magazines halve your armour everywhere (including turrets, which I didn't expect) except where the magazines are which I believe are instead thicker - its a very intense redistribution of armour, but I've never used it to see if I do get the expected increase in general penetrations. What are you changing about your BC design that runs to another 22,000t in 10 years? I know that right clicking and opening the design from 1920 will come in at a lower weight in 1930. Edit: Got confused over which ship was which. The mag-box does not affect the turret armour.
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Dec 27, 2021 4:43:43 GMT -6
I have some questions regarding Magazine Boxes. First up is how are they modeled and what do they represent in terms of protection? And secondly how accurate are they for later ship designs and keeping the displacement down on ships that seem to balloon out of control without it? I would rather not build Battlecruisers that are already grazing the 70,000-ton range in the 1930s compared to their 48,000-ton predecessors from 1920 despite the same armament. And related to that what are the thoughts on these two "Battlecruiser" Designs and how I should proceed with the designs? Along with that should I cut off the Extended Belt armor seeing as how it reduces all those rather annoying rudder jams or feed water hits? <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> One thing to note about the design here is that I would not call it a BC at all. This an oversized fast battleship, with speed and armor (aprticularly deck armour) in excess of what is reasonable for its time - and therefore requiring tonnage in excess of what would be reasonable for its role and armament.
Before you have the tech to build fast BBs and dont want to go into Yamato+ displacements, the simplified process would be like this:
You have three things: 1. Armament 2. Armor 3. Speed.
Pick TWO of them.
Armament and armor, but slow speed - you get a battleship. Armament and speed, but weak armor - you get British-style BC. Armor and speed, but weaker armament - you get German-style BC.
Its an art of compromises. You havent made any and decided you want it all on your ship, so its not surprising it ended up with such cost and size.
As for Magbox - it halves deck and belt thickness over machinery. I would typically avoid using it on BC and BB, though have done so on occasion, for very budget BBs, which this one is not.
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Dec 27, 2021 4:47:05 GMT -6
I have some questions regarding Magazine Boxes. First up is how are they modeled and what do they represent in terms of protection? And secondly how accurate are they for later ship designs and keeping the displacement down on ships that seem to balloon out of control without it? I would rather not build Battlecruisers that are already grazing the 70,000-ton range in the 1930s compared to their 48,000-ton predecessors from 1920 despite the same armament. And related to that what are the thoughts on these two "Battlecruiser" Designs and how I should proceed with the designs? Along with that should I cut off the Extended Belt armor seeing as how it reduces all those rather annoying rudder jams or feed water hits? <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> Officially box magazines halve your armour everywhere (including turrets, which I didn't expect) except where the magazines are which I believe are instead thicker - its a very intense redistribution of armour, but I've never used it to see if I do get the expected increase in general penetrations. What are you changing about your BC design that runs to another 22,000t in 10 years? I know that right clicking and opening the design from 1920 will come in at a lower weight in 1930. Magbox doesnt impact the turret armor. Its only B and D. Other armor, including BE and DE is not affected. You can check it by watching the displacement when you check and uncheck the box, try it with unarmored ship and armored turrets and see that nothing changes.
|
|
akd
Full Member
Posts: 126
|
Post by akd on Dec 27, 2021 8:21:33 GMT -6
I have some questions regarding Magazine Boxes. First up is how are they modeled and what do they represent in terms of protection? And secondly how accurate are they for later ship designs and keeping the displacement down on ships that seem to balloon out of control without it? I would rather not build Battlecruisers that are already grazing the 70,000-ton range in the 1930s compared to their 48,000-ton predecessors from 1920 despite the same armament. And related to that what are the thoughts on these two "Battlecruiser" Designs and how I should proceed with the designs? Along with that should I cut off the Extended Belt armor seeing as how it reduces all those rather annoying rudder jams or feed water hits? <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> Officially box magazines halve your armour everywhere (including turrets, which I didn't expect) except where the magazines are which I believe are instead thicker - its a very intense redistribution of armour, but I've never used it to see if I do get the expected increase in general penetrations. My understanding is that this is mostly for cruisers to minimize weight while protecting against catastrophic boom-booms. But many battleships had different belt and deck thicknesses over magazines and machinery spaces, but not 50% difference. More like 1-inch or so difference. Why can’t we just directly set values for belt and deck on magazines and belt and deck on machinery spaces?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 27, 2021 10:37:44 GMT -6
My only comment is historical. By 1933, two of the battle cruisers missions: fleet scouting and raider/anti-raider were obsolete. The airplane; either a float plane or seaplane and eventually carriers replaced the BC as a scout. As to raiders, submarines did the job better because they were stealth. I use submarines almost exclusively. So, by 1933, the battle cruiser was essentially unneeded. I built heavy cruisers based on missions, light cruisers and battleships. The battle cruiser was an intermediate ship and was not need by your date. Here is an example of a 1937 British Battle Cruiser -
|
|
f105d
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by f105d on Dec 27, 2021 14:23:02 GMT -6
So I have decided to throw out the Magazine Box and Extended Belt Armor from the Designs. Which has allowed for the 70,000ton version to slink down to a more modest ~62,000tons or around a fully loaded Iowa(in 1968). The main changes over its predecessor is the increased Deck, Belt and Turret armor. Though I have a question on how the turret armor works in Rule the Waves 2? Seeing as how in any form that can rob most of the displacement from the ship despite the thickness being relatively small in comparison to historical peers. Here are the "Battlecruiser" Designs (The predecessor is the Prinz Eitel Friedrich) after the changes though I am only calling them Battlecruisers as that is what Rule the Waves 2 categorizes them as. With the ships really just being as janxol pointed out Fast Battleships.
|
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Dec 27, 2021 14:58:56 GMT -6
So I have decided to throw out the Magazine Box and Extended Belt Armor from the Designs. Which has allowed for the 70,000ton version to slink down to a more modest ~62,000tons or around a fully loaded Iowa. The main changes over its predecessor is the increased Deck, Belt and Turret armor. Though I have a question on how the turret armor works in Rule the Waves 2? Seeing as how in any form that can rob most of the displacement from the ship despite the thickness being relatively small in comparison to historical peers. <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button>Here are the "Battlecruiser" Designs (The predecessor is the Prinz Eitel Friedrich) after the changes though I am only calling them Battlecruisers as that is what Rule the Waves 2 categorizes them as. With the ships really just being as janxol pointed out Fast Battleships. I think the changes are an improvement so far, but your deck armor is still higher than I think is necessary. You could likely make do by reducing it to 5" but personally I'd say no more than 6" is likely to be necessary and would free up an absolute ton of weight. You could use much of that weight to increase rounds per gun. Personally I wouldn't settle for less than 120 there. If you were willing to utilize an all forward armament design then you could reduce the tonnage on this thing a great deal while retaining the same broadside by just increasing number of guns in the 3 forward turrets, which also has the benefit of making it cheaper to armor those turrets.
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Dec 27, 2021 15:05:16 GMT -6
In my personal opinion of these the Prinz Eitel Friedrich is the most reasonable design. Using it as basis I'd update gun to the newer model, update TDS, inclined belt, get rid of speed machinery and put it to normal - you have enough tonnage, even if you need to drop a knot or two, you dont want it randomly breaking down. 5 inch deck is more than enough for its time, and 7 inch is rather extreme. I'd also up the turret face armor to about 15 inches and secondary armor to 2 inches to ensure splinter protection, but protecting secondaries is up to your choice.
For the RTW categorization - any capital ship above 30 knots (or 31, cant remember) will be a BC regardless of what you put on it.
Regarding turret armor its exactly what it says on the tin. If you want it that thick you need to pay for it. I personally use turret armor == gun caliber and Turret top == deck+1 as rule of thumb. Im also not sure what historicla peers youre comparing it to. Bismarck had 14.2" turret faces, as did Scharnhorst. North Carolina had 16", King George V had less than 13", Littorio 15", Dunkerque 13", Richelieu had it heavier at 17". If you're referring to Iowa and Yamato, according to my knowledge they were the ones with heavy turret armor comapred to peers.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 27, 2021 20:35:09 GMT -6
My last comment is simply that 20th century warfare.... game included is attritional. It's better to have more than less. I believe it is better to have two 35,000 tons BC's than one 70,000 ton. Its cost per performance as usual. Just my simple opinion based on my gaming and historical analysis. Enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Dec 27, 2021 22:50:30 GMT -6
Officially box magazines halve your armour everywhere (including turrets, which I didn't expect) except where the magazines are which I believe are instead thicker - its a very intense redistribution of armour, but I've never used it to see if I do get the expected increase in general penetrations. What are you changing about your BC design that runs to another 22,000t in 10 years? I know that right clicking and opening the design from 1920 will come in at a lower weight in 1930. Magbox doesnt impact the turret armor. Its only B and D. Other armor, including BE and DE is not affected. You can check it by watching the displacement when you check and uncheck the box, try it with unarmored ship and armored turrets and see that nothing changes. You're correct, I got confused which ship had the mag-box armour. I was thinking that the top ship had the more thickly armoured but lighter turrets and the mag-box.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Dec 27, 2021 23:09:28 GMT -6
So I have decided to throw out the Magazine Box and Extended Belt Armor from the Designs. Which has allowed for the 70,000ton version to slink down to a more modest ~62,000tons or around a fully loaded Iowa(in 1968). The main changes over its predecessor is the increased Deck, Belt and Turret armor. Though I have a question on how the turret armor works in Rule the Waves 2? Seeing as how in any form that can rob most of the displacement from the ship despite the thickness being relatively small in comparison to historical peers. <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button>Here are the "Battlecruiser" Designs (The predecessor is the Prinz Eitel Friedrich) after the changes though I am only calling them Battlecruisers as that is what Rule the Waves 2 categorizes them as. With the ships really just being as janxol pointed out Fast Battleships. Personally i would just throw off 4 inches of belt armor and go over to a sloped deck scheme making your armor alot more effective AON really does not work as AON in game and its not modelled correctly (if at all) its essentially the same as FDOB (Flat deck on belt) from 1900 game mechanics wise Sloped deck on your BC with 10 inch belt and 7 inch deck (bomb immune) would give you 17 inch effective belt thickness and save you alot of weight its more durable than AON Also 3x3 is better than 4x2 though not by alot i would also put atleast 18 to 20 inches turret armor when you have that thick of a belt
|
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Dec 28, 2021 2:21:25 GMT -6
My last comment is simply that 20th century warfare.... game included is attritional. It's better to have more than less. I believe it is better to have two 35,000 tons BC's than one 70,000 ton. Its cost per performance as usual. Just my simple opinion based on my gaming and historical analysis. Enjoy. I have to respectfully disagree with you there, at least when it comes to the game. Real world circumstances such as the UK colonial obligations or America's current commitments mean numbers are important but the way the game's battle generator tends to work you'll tend to get pitted against the same number or pretty darn close to it number of opponent ships which means it's highly unlikely they'll ever have an actual 2 to 1 advantage in hulls in the first place and even if it did that 70k ton ship could very likely face down both 35k tonners on its own anyway. Obviously the number of hulls is important for things like blockade, and losing a 70k ton ship to a mine or torpedo will hurt a hell of a lot more than one of those 35k ton ones, but you will get way more from the 70k ton ship than the smaller alternatives. There's a reason the dreadnaught race was such a big deal. Dreadnaughts weren't just better than their forebears, they were magnitudes better and failing to keep up was seen as likely to be disastrous. It's the same if the battleship race had continued and air power hadn't come along to render the whole race irrelevant on that front. Maybe I'm wrong but I believe that most navies (outside of the UK of course) had been given the option of having half their enemies fleet in numbers of battleships but each would have been double the tonnage, they likely would have happily taken it.
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Dec 28, 2021 4:44:19 GMT -6
It depends on the enemy fleet composition. Sometimes an enemy's battleship force is obliterated after a war, and they mass-build CAs instead of rebuilding it. In this case, you need numbers. Also, a submarine can take out your 70000-ton battleship but it's much harder to have both smaller battleships in an area to be damaged by a sub. And air power is the great equalizer, so if you go overboard with huge BBs, you can miss out on carriers and lose.
|
|