indy
Full Member
Posts: 118
|
Post by indy on Nov 13, 2021 21:29:48 GMT -6
As USA in 1932 I don't have a lot of Battlecruisers. So I decide to build some. I see Britain has a BC built in 1922 weighing in at 56,000 tons sporting 14" of Belt with 9x 15" guns doing 30 knots. I check all the other nations and that is the BC mark to beat in terms of designing one comparably.
So I try to build a BC just like it and I cannot. It says I must go speed 31 which makes the design push up way above 60k tons and becomes unaffordable. Now I'm stressed out. How did Britain build this in 1922 and ten years later I cannot?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 13, 2021 21:49:56 GMT -6
The minimum speed necessary for a heavily-armored capital ship to fall under the battle cruiser classification is lower earlier in the game, and the Almanac is not a perfectly accurate source of information on the speed and armor protection of foreign powers' warships.
|
|
indy
Full Member
Posts: 118
|
Post by indy on Nov 13, 2021 22:25:55 GMT -6
Yes, ty, but will not the battle generator pit my CA's against enemy BC's if I elect to build this ship as a BB instead because I don't want to go 31 and want to go 30 and have to build as a BB? Or will the battle generator place this speed 30 BB when it calls for a Cruiser fight and I dont have any BC's? I'm stressed because I think it will use my CA's in such a situation and all because the classification of BC's was too stringent.
I'd like a table where this could be altered. I think the game would be much less stressful if the requirements were not so draconian.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Nov 13, 2021 22:45:41 GMT -6
Any BB of (IIRC) 28+ knots is considered a Fast Battleship and will be used just like a BC by the battle-generator
|
|
indy
Full Member
Posts: 118
|
Post by indy on Nov 13, 2021 22:57:35 GMT -6
Any BB of (IIRC) 28+ knots is considered a Fast Battleship and will be used just like a BC by the battle-generator TY! So in a Cruiser battle, where I have a fast BB, the fast BB will be used instead of a CA? Because I've never seen my CA be chosen against a BC when I had a BC in the area. If that is the case, why build BC's beyond that point in which I can make fast BB's?
|
|
|
Post by halseyincarnate on Nov 13, 2021 23:05:48 GMT -6
There really isn't a huge reason to that I can see, and that follows what historically happened. You really don't see any navies building battlecruisers after the early 1920's. In game my late game battlecruisers are more often a way to get battleship level AA at a cheaper price for carrier escort, think something along the lines of an Alaska Class.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 14, 2021 1:09:14 GMT -6
There really isn't a huge reason to that I can see, and that follows what historically happened. You really don't see any navies building battlecruisers after the early 1920's. In game my late game battlecruisers are more often a way to get battleship level AA at a cheaper price for carrier escort, think something along the lines of an Alaska Class. The Alaskas, Iowas, Dunkerques, Design 1047, B65, Stalingrad, Kronstadt, O, and some similar designs all look something like you might expect for a 'modern' WWII-era battlecruiser - the Iowas, for example, look a lot like an Admiral class to the South Dakotas' Queen Elizabeth and the Montanas' N3, while the Alaskas and Dunkerques are more of a throwback to the early British battlecruiser concept as seen in the Invincible and Indefatigable classes, clearly not suited to a stand-up fight against contemporary modern battleships but theoretically fast enough to run away from most of them and more than powerful enough to destroy any contemporary cruiser. It is also worth bearing in mind, when citing historical precedent for the absence of battlecruisers in post-1920s naval construction, that historical naval programs were significantly affected by the naval treaties and the two world wars. Naval construction unconstrained by the treaties, the aftermath of the First World War, and the disruption and paradigm-shift of the Second World War could look very different. If there had been more modern capital ships or more time for the post-battleship holiday big gun capital ship to develop, maybe there would have been a more clear-cut modern battlecruiser, but the USN is the only navy to have completed more than half a dozen or so modern capital ships after the battleship holiday of the 1920s ended - Britain had the five KGVs and Vanguard, Germany the two Scharnhorsts and the two Bismarcks, France the two Dunkerques and two-ish Richelieus, Italy the three Littorios, and Japan the two (or two-and-a-half, counting Shinano) Yamatos. As an aside, I would dispute the Alaskas being described as battleship-level AA escorts - the USN's modern battleships all carried 10x2x5"/38 whereas the Alaskas, Baltimores, Clevelands, and most later USN gun cruisers carried 6x2x5"/38; the lighter AA weapons, meanwhile, didn't contribute much to formation defense due to limited effective range and so any advantages there do not significantly improve the Alaskas' suitability as AA escorts.
|
|
|
Post by halseyincarnate on Nov 14, 2021 15:14:23 GMT -6
There really isn't a huge reason to that I can see, and that follows what historically happened. You really don't see any navies building battlecruisers after the early 1920's. In game my late game battlecruisers are more often a way to get battleship level AA at a cheaper price for carrier escort, think something along the lines of an Alaska Class. As an aside, I would dispute the Alaskas being described as battleship-level AA escorts - the USN's modern battleships all carried 10x2x5"/38 whereas the Alaskas, Baltimores, Clevelands, and most later USN gun cruisers carried 6x2x5"/38; the lighter AA weapons, meanwhile, didn't contribute much to formation defense due to limited effective range and so any advantages there do not significantly improve the Alaskas' suitability as AA escorts. I'm not saying the Alaska's themselves were built or used as bit AA escorts, as I understand they were built to be Heavy Cruiser killers. I'm saying that I often build late game BCs that are somewhat in the Alaska mold (9 12 inch guns in 3 turrets and as much 5 inch DP AA as I can reasonably fit). By 1940ish I'm usually transitioning to a fully carrier focused navy so I don't need as many heavy capital ships
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Nov 15, 2021 13:49:27 GMT -6
As USA in 1932 I don't have a lot of Battlecruisers. So I decide to build some. I see Britain has a BC built in 1922 weighing in at 56,000 tons sporting 14" of Belt with 9x 15" guns doing 30 knots. I check all the other nations and that is the BC mark to beat in terms of designing one comparably. So I try to build a BC just like it and I cannot. It says I must go speed 31 which makes the design push up way above 60k tons and becomes unaffordable. Now I'm stressed out. How did Britain build this in 1922 and ten years later I cannot? Any mods? I have never in dozens upon dozens of playthroughs seen the AI build anything that large in 1922. In fact this magnitude of displacement is rarely achieved by the AI even in the endgame. This being said, the requirements you mention are relatively reasonable for the 1930s. 31kts seems excessive - I would expect a 28-30 kts requirement, but fine. To hit this mark, reduce the armor and/or armament as the Great powers historically did. Say, 9x15" guns with a minimal secondary battery, and a 9-10" belt at most with perhaps a 3" deck. This should displace perhaps 35K tons assuming normal tech level for the time.
|
|
|
Post by xenontennessee on Nov 21, 2021 18:30:31 GMT -6
Personally I think fast BBs are considered as BCs in battle generator. This is my fleet in a "cruiser action", and Murat is a new 28-knots battleship. Historically, the trend was to replace battlecruisers with fast BBs. (I thought it was about increasing armour, but maybe it's just the matter of how to name a same ship in different ways.) However, I realised that in the 1930s armour became a bit unreliable against increasing calibre and penetration, so I tend to return to BCs...
|
|
euchrejack
Full Member
Don't feed the Trolls. They just get bigger and more numerous.
Posts: 139
|
Post by euchrejack on Dec 2, 2021 15:14:00 GMT -6
Actually, some battlecruisers BECAME battleships, but yeah battlecruisers were always a flawed idea, and eventually everyone figured it out.
Why PAY for something as expensive AS a battleship that was NOT a battleship? You DON'T. At least until Aircraft Carriers came around and just bombed all the naval theories.
I would like the game pre-1920 to loosen the restrictions on defining a battlecruiser a bit. Even then, its hard to build a battlecruiser. It'll usually end up a Battleship (the world's first fast battleship!) or a Heavy Cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 2, 2021 15:33:47 GMT -6
Actually, some battlecruisers BECAME battleships, but yeah battlecruisers were always a flawed idea, and eventually everyone figured it out. Why PAY for something as expensive AS a battleship that was NOT a battleship? You DON'T. At least until Aircraft Carriers came around and just bombed all the naval theories. I would like the game pre-1920 to loosen the restrictions on defining a battlecruiser a bit. Even then, its hard to build a battlecruiser. It'll usually end up a Battleship (the world's first fast battleship!) or a Heavy Cruiser. Really? German battlecruisers were hard to knock, USS Hood was in 20s more powerful than most of battleships ....
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Dec 2, 2021 19:32:14 GMT -6
Actually, some battlecruisers BECAME battleships, but yeah battlecruisers were always a flawed idea, and eventually everyone figured it out. Why PAY for something as expensive AS a battleship that was NOT a battleship? You DON'T. At least until Aircraft Carriers came around and just bombed all the naval theories. I would like the game pre-1920 to loosen the restrictions on defining a battlecruiser a bit. Even then, its hard to build a battlecruiser. It'll usually end up a Battleship (the world's first fast battleship!) or a Heavy Cruiser. Really? German battlecruisers were hard to knock, USS Hood was in 20s more powerful than most of battleships .... BC's are not really flawed in my estimation, but they may not have been the best use of resources at the time. If you want to build a BC, just make it fairly fast and keep the belt armor down. I like building 30k ton BC's in the late game with 11-13 in guns all forward, sort of like a cross between an Alaska and a Scharnhorst. P.S. I imagine you are referring to HMS Hood, not USS Hood. Probably just a typo, but I'll point it out anyway!
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on Dec 3, 2021 15:19:56 GMT -6
Any BB of (IIRC) 28+ knots is considered a Fast Battleship and will be used just like a BC by the battle-generator TY! So in a Cruiser battle, where I have a fast BB, the fast BB will be used instead of a CA? Because I've never seen my CA be chosen against a BC when I had a BC in the area. If that is the case, why build BC's beyond that point in which I can make fast BB's? Well to be honest I have had things that should be classed as (F)BB get classed as BC. A 90000 ton ship with 12 16" guns and 44 sec/ter guns 16" belt, 8" deck and 35 knots can get classed as a BC. The thing is in no way a BC but tell the game that
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on Dec 3, 2021 15:26:19 GMT -6
Actually, some battlecruisers BECAME battleships, but yeah battlecruisers were always a flawed idea, and eventually everyone figured it out. Why PAY for something as expensive AS a battleship that was NOT a battleship? You DON'T. At least until Aircraft Carriers came around and just bombed all the naval theories. I would like the game pre-1920 to loosen the restrictions on defining a battlecruiser a bit. Even then, its hard to build a battlecruiser. It'll usually end up a Battleship (the world's first fast battleship!) or a Heavy Cruiser. My BC tend to either be the game being stupid or using BB guns on a CA hull
|
|