|
|
Post by asdfzxc922 on Feb 11, 2022 16:10:22 GMT -6
The order in which you unlock DP guns always seemed wrong to me. In real life, DP guns bigger than 3" weren't developed outside of the UK until the late 20s. This forced naval architects to retain the heavy single-purpose secondary batteries on all their capital ships, which in turn seriously limited the weight available for AA. In RTW2-land, you instead get 4" DP guns right from the start. The 4" is a better AA gun than the 3" and it's actually viable as an anti-surface weapon, so the optimal strategy circa 1918 is to immediately replace all the secondaries on anything bigger than a CL with a huge number of shielded 4" DP guns. This has a side effect of freeing up a crapload of weight, so there's no reason not to also max out your LAA at the same time. The AI, unfortunately, isn't smart enough to exploit this, so their historical designs with 2-8 3" and 5-10 LAA will end up facing very ahistorical player designs with 20 4" and 40-50 LAA. You might expect that this is balanced by the 4" gun's reduced damage vs. destroyers, but the greater barrel count and base ROF is enough to counteract this. Proposed solution: - Change the original DP guns tech to only unlock 3" guns, and make 4" guns unlock at around the same time as 5".
- Make rebuilds that change secondary calibers and mount types slower and more expensive. Currently it's barely more expensive than a blank refit, and doesn't add any time.
There's two other DP-related techs I'd love to see implemented: - Triple DP turrets for 6" guns. This was the standard arrangement IRL, and for good reason (it's lighter, takes up less deck space, and has better firing arcs than the all-twin turret farms we're stuck with right now).
- True 7-8" DP guns (i.e. not SHAA). In real life these were briefly very popular from the late 20s to the early 30s, and the Soviet 7" DP mount actually seemed to be work as well as a typical 6" gun (4-6rpm and passable traverse/elevation rates with a 200lbs monster of a shell).
|
|
|
|
Post by midnightflame on Feb 11, 2022 17:11:21 GMT -6
I agree that we should split the 3” & 4” to 3”, 4”-5”. Then perhaps 6”-7” guns. I don’t think there ever was a 8” gun that was seriously considered a true DP gun. The only 8” gun that was ever considered perhaps a DP gun is the British 8” gun, and while it was a perfectly adequate surface gun it was a terrible AA gun, because although it had a good HE shell that would probably take down any aircraft it hit in one shot, it lacked RoF and its elevation and traverse was slow, something that was critical in AA guns, especially in the early days before radar. And you can actually somewhat model it in game already, simply select increased elevation and HAA shells for large guns in the doctrine, but keep in mind that there is a reason it was never really implemented beyond theories and basic experiments IRL.
As for the triple DP gun i don’t think it would work. Again, most navies used single or double DP guns for a reason, and the only triple DP guns I know of are the French triple 6” and Japanese 6.1 inch, both of wich were considered lacklustre in AA capacity, but especially the Japanese gun was sh*t at AA work.
And looking at postwar DP guns you will again find most were in twin mounts, American and British 6” (Worcester and Tiger-class respectively) and the US 5” 54cal gun in single mounts (and a theoretical twin mount).
But maybe allow for putting a DP triple gun mount with the AA penalties that were found irl by modelling them with a severe HAA penalty
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Feb 11, 2022 17:21:04 GMT -6
The order in which you unlock DP guns always seemed wrong to me. In real life, DP guns bigger than 3" weren't developed outside of the UK until the late 20s. This forced naval architects to retain the heavy single-purpose secondary batteries on all their capital ships, which in turn seriously limited the weight available for AA. In RTW2-land, you instead get 4" DP guns right from the start. The 4" is a better AA gun than the 3" and it's actually viable as an anti-surface weapon, so the optimal strategy circa 1918 is to immediately replace all the secondaries on anything bigger than a CL with a huge number of shielded 4" DP guns. This has a side effect of freeing up a crapload of weight, so there's no reason not to also max out your LAA at the same time. The AI, unfortunately, isn't smart enough to exploit this, so their historical designs with 2-8 3" and 5-10 LAA will end up facing very ahistorical player designs with 20 4" and 40-50 LAA. You might expect that this is balanced by the 4" gun's reduced damage vs. destroyers, but the greater barrel count and base ROF is enough to counteract this. Proposed solution: - Change the original DP guns tech to only unlock 3" guns, and make 4" guns unlock at around the same time as 5".
- Make rebuilds that change secondary calibers and mount types slower and more expensive. Currently it's barely more expensive than a blank refit, and doesn't add any time.
There's two other DP-related techs I'd love to see implemented: - Triple DP turrets for 6" guns. This was the standard arrangement IRL, and for good reason (it's lighter, takes up less deck space, and has better firing arcs than the all-twin turret farms we're stuck with right now).
- True 7-8" DP guns (i.e. not SHAA). In real life these were briefly very popular from the late 20s to the early 30s, and the Soviet 7" DP mount actually seemed to be work as well as a typical 6" gun (4-6rpm and passable traverse/elevation rates with a 200lbs monster of a shell).
The 5"/25 AA gun is from 1921. I think the problem is not the early unlock of the heavy calibres, its the fact that all early AA guns, 3"/4"/5", were pretty awful surface weapons. I would say there should be heavy penalties to all DP weapons(letting the player choose between AA penalties and surface penalties would be ideal, or random between them) until a tech is unlocked in the 1930s. Here's a historical rundown through WWIIish, that I think justifies having these penalties and slowly mitigating them. Data taken from NavWeaps US Navy 3"/23 Mark 14-AA Gun, Poor for surface 3"/50 Mark 10-1914-Attempted DP Gun, Poor for AA 5"/25-1921-AA Gun, Poor for surface 5"/38-1932-Good DP Gun 3"/50 Mark 44-1944-Good DP Gun Royal Navy 3"/45 20cwt QF HA(12-pdr)-1913-AA Gun, Poor for Surface 4.7"/43 QF Mark VII-1918-Attempted DP Gun, Poor for AA 4"/45 QF Mark XVI-1934-DP Gun, not great accuracy but performs well for AA 4.5"/45 QF Mark I-1935-DP Gun 5.25"/50 QF Mark I-1935-DP Gun, Underperforms for AA Japanese Navy(Probably skipping the Improved DP tech in game) 3"/40 3rd Year Type-1914-AA Gun, Poor for Surface 4.7"/45 10th Year Type-1921-AA Gun 3"/40 11rd Year Type-1922-AA Gun, Poor for Surface 5"/50 Third Year Type-1926-DP Gun, Poor for AA 5"/40 Type 89-1929-AA Gun 3"/60 Type 98-1938-AA Gun 3.9"/65 Type 98-1938-"Superb" AA Gun There are obviously 4 other big navies, if I get a chance I'll look into them, and if anyone has an example that counteracts this I'd love to see. |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Feb 11, 2022 17:25:21 GMT -6
I agree that we should split the 3” & 4” to 3”, 4”-5”. Then perhaps 6”-7” guns. I don’t think there ever was a 8” gun that was seriously considered a true DP gun. The only 8” gun that was ever considered perhaps a DP gun is the British 8” gun, and while it was a perfectly adequate surface gun it was a terrible AA gun, because although it had a good HE shell that would probably take down any aircraft it hit in one shot, it lacked RoF and its elevation and traverse was slow, something that was critical in AA guns, especially in the early days before radar. And you can actually somewhat model it in game already, simply select increased elevation and HAA shells for large guns in the doctrine, but keep in mind that there is a reason it was never really implemented beyond theories and basic experiments IRL. As for the triple DP gun i don’t think it would work. Again, most navies used single or double DP guns for a reason, and the only triple DP guns I know of are the French triple 6” and Japanese 6.1 inch, both of wich were considered lacklustre in AA capacity, but especially the Japanese gun was sh*t at AA work. And looking at postwar DP guns you will again find most were in twin mounts, American and British 6” (Worcester and Tiger-class respectively) and the US 5” 54cal gun in single mounts (and a theoretical twin mount). But maybe allow for putting a DP triple gun mount with the AA penalties that were found irl by modelling them with a severe HAA penalty With regards to the triple mounts, the British 6" was originally supposed to be put in a triple mount, and given that the French and Japanese didn't have good guns to start with it very well might have been possible to maintain the excellent qualities of the 6"/50 QF Mark N5 that ended up on Tiger's (And the Minotaur ZA plan's) twin turrets. See here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune-class_cruiser |
|
|
|
Post by midnightflame on Feb 11, 2022 20:13:24 GMT -6
I agree that we should split the 3” & 4” to 3”, 4”-5”. Then perhaps 6”-7” guns. I don’t think there ever was a 8” gun that was seriously considered a true DP gun. The only 8” gun that was ever considered perhaps a DP gun is the British 8” gun, and while it was a perfectly adequate surface gun it was a terrible AA gun, because although it had a good HE shell that would probably take down any aircraft it hit in one shot, it lacked RoF and its elevation and traverse was slow, something that was critical in AA guns, especially in the early days before radar. And you can actually somewhat model it in game already, simply select increased elevation and HAA shells for large guns in the doctrine, but keep in mind that there is a reason it was never really implemented beyond theories and basic experiments IRL. As for the triple DP gun i don’t think it would work. Again, most navies used single or double DP guns for a reason, and the only triple DP guns I know of are the French triple 6” and Japanese 6.1 inch, both of wich were considered lacklustre in AA capacity, but especially the Japanese gun was sh*t at AA work. And looking at postwar DP guns you will again find most were in twin mounts, American and British 6” (Worcester and Tiger-class respectively) and the US 5” 54cal gun in single mounts (and a theoretical twin mount). But maybe allow for putting a DP triple gun mount with the AA penalties that were found irl by modelling them with a severe HAA penalty With regards to the triple mounts, the British 6" was originally supposed to be put in a triple mount, and given that the French and Japanese didn't have good guns to start with it very well might have been possible to maintain the excellent qualities of the 6"/50 QF Mark N5 that ended up on Tiger's (And the Minotaur ZA plan's) twin turrets. See here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune-class_cruiserWhile it’s true that the British N5 mount was originally intended for the triple gun turret, the Mk25 mount, I’m not sure if it’s a DP turret. The Wikipedia article for the N5 states: “The development of the Mark V gun started during the Second World War and was intended for triple Mark 25 mountings on the projected Neptune-class cruisers. When the Neptune-class ships were cancelled in 1946, the gun was redesigned to be mounted in pairs to the new and complex Mark 26 dual purpose mounting and gun turret designed for rapid automatic fire on the projected Minotaur-class cruiser.” This might just be me reading too far, but the fact that it had to be redesigned for the mk26 turret where it explicitly states that the mk26 is DP but not that the Mk25 was, leads me to believe that it wouldn’t be a true DP gun. Again, I might be wrong, and Wikipedia is not the most reliable source. I also just remembered that is swedes also developed a 6” DP gun, the Bofors 15.2 cm m/42. I know it came in a double and triple mount but unfortunately I don’t know if it’s performance, wether it be in surface warfare or in the AA role. Another problem here is that the triple mount was only ever mounted on two ships (HswMS Tre Kronor and HswMS Göta Lejon), and on those ships only one turret was a triple, meaning that only two turrets were used making it hard to assess their effectiveness. |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Feb 11, 2022 21:10:55 GMT -6
With regards to the triple mounts, the British 6" was originally supposed to be put in a triple mount, and given that the French and Japanese didn't have good guns to start with it very well might have been possible to maintain the excellent qualities of the 6"/50 QF Mark N5 that ended up on Tiger's (And the Minotaur ZA plan's) twin turrets. See here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune-class_cruiserWhile it’s true that the British N5 mount was originally intended for the triple gun turret, the Mk25 mount, I’m not sure if it’s a DP turret. The Wikipedia article for the N5 states: “The development of the Mark V gun started during the Second World War and was intended for triple Mark 25 mountings on the projected Neptune-class cruisers. When the Neptune-class ships were cancelled in 1946, the gun was redesigned to be mounted in pairs to the new and complex Mark 26 dual purpose mounting and gun turret designed for rapid automatic fire on the projected Minotaur-class cruiser.” This might just be me reading too far, but the fact that it had to be redesigned for the mk26 turret where it explicitly states that the mk26 is DP but not that the Mk25 was, leads me to believe that it wouldn’t be a true DP gun. Again, I might be wrong, and Wikipedia is not the most reliable source. I also just remembered that is swedes also developed a 6” DP gun, the Bofors 15.2 cm m/42. I know it came in a double and triple mount but unfortunately I don’t know if it’s performance, wether it be in surface warfare or in the AA role. Another problem here is that the triple mount was only ever mounted on two ships (HswMS Tre Kronor and HswMS Göta Lejon), and on those ships only one turret was a triple, meaning that only two turrets were used making it hard to assess their effectiveness. Hmm, wiki cites Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1922–1946 and British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After for the Mark 25 being a dual purpose mounting. Here's Conway's saying that it was going to attempt HAA, unfortunately I can't get ahold of Friedman's work as its newer  |
|
|
|
Post by midnightflame on Feb 11, 2022 21:56:32 GMT -6
While it’s true that the British N5 mount was originally intended for the triple gun turret, the Mk25 mount, I’m not sure if it’s a DP turret. The Wikipedia article for the N5 states: “The development of the Mark V gun started during the Second World War and was intended for triple Mark 25 mountings on the projected Neptune-class cruisers. When the Neptune-class ships were cancelled in 1946, the gun was redesigned to be mounted in pairs to the new and complex Mark 26 dual purpose mounting and gun turret designed for rapid automatic fire on the projected Minotaur-class cruiser.” This might just be me reading too far, but the fact that it had to be redesigned for the mk26 turret where it explicitly states that the mk26 is DP but not that the Mk25 was, leads me to believe that it wouldn’t be a true DP gun. Again, I might be wrong, and Wikipedia is not the most reliable source. I also just remembered that is swedes also developed a 6” DP gun, the Bofors 15.2 cm m/42. I know it came in a double and triple mount but unfortunately I don’t know if it’s performance, wether it be in surface warfare or in the AA role. Another problem here is that the triple mount was only ever mounted on two ships (HswMS Tre Kronor and HswMS Göta Lejon), and on those ships only one turret was a triple, meaning that only two turrets were used making it hard to assess their effectiveness. Hmm, wiki cites Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1922–1946 and British Cruisers: Two World Wars and After for the Mark 25 being a dual purpose mounting. Here's Conway's saying that it was going to attempt HAA, unfortunately I can't get ahold of Friedman's work as its newer View AttachmentHats of to you for having the proper sources! Seems I was wrong, and this was simply Wikipedia not directly stating that the Mk25 was DP. Janes fighting ships doesn’t the happen to cover the Bofors 15.2cm m/42? On a similar note, didn’t the US have plans for a triple 6” DP gun? We now know it’s theoretically possible for a triple DP turret, the question comes to modelling it in game. Perhaps a tech in the mid 30:s for early triple DP turrets with big penalties for HAA score and some small reliability issues (not as much as early triple and quad mounts but still noticeable) making twin mounts better for AA and reliability, but with it allowing for a trade-off similar to the early triple guns in game, with more firepower for a cost. I justify this with the fact that the irl triple DP guns were terrible, and that even if the guns themselves were better, there would still be rate of fire and rate of turn issues that can’t be solved with the current tech. The score penalty could be like 35% worse than the same number of double mounts, I.e a ship with 100 HAA with double mounts would have 65 HAA with triple turrets Then perhaps in the mid 40:s to early 50:s as a tech wich removes the reliability penalty and some of the AA score penalty, as although the guns themselves would be made more reliable, the fact of the matter is that a triple turret is still heavier than a twin turret and it would therefore still have a noticeably worse rate of turn. Perhaps a penalty of 10% HAA compared to the same number of twin mounts, I.e a ship with 100 HAA with twins would have 90 HAA with triples. This would mean that gun for gun, twin mounts offers better HAA score but with triples allowing for a higher number of guns in a more efficient layout, with a ship with 12 guns in twins need 6 turrets, with min of 4 guns over a given arc while the one with triples has 4 turrets with a min of 6 on any given arc. On a different but similar note, a now DP gun tech in the late 40:s allowing DP 2” guns. This tech should allow for you to have more than one caliber of DP guns but only if the main one (Main battery on dd & cl and secondary on ca and larger) is 5” or larger. Would this work? Or is it a horrible idea? |
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Feb 12, 2022 0:26:44 GMT -6
Royal Navy 3"/45 20cwt QF HA(12-pdr)-1913-AA Gun, Poor for Surface 4.7"/43 QF Mark VII-1918-Attempted DP Gun, Poor for AA 4"/45 QF Mark XVI-1934-DP Gun, not great accuracy but performs well for AA 4.5"/45 QF Mark I-1935-DP Gun 5.25"/50 QF Mark I-1935-DP Gun, Underperforms for AA Just a quick highlight, there seems to be some confusions over the British 3" guns. There were actually 2 guns in use around WW1, both of which survived to WW2: A 3"/40 12 cwt gun firing a 12.5lb shell that was usually called the 12 pounder, but sometimes the 3" 12 cwt. This became the first dual purpose gun used by the British. A 3"/45 20cwt gun initially firing a 12.5lb shell but upgraded to a 16lb shell by 1916, which was called the 3" 20cwt. To the best of my knowledge this was a pure AA gun. |
|
|
|
Post by asdfzxc922 on Feb 12, 2022 1:51:42 GMT -6
The logic behind 6" triple DP mounts is that both the timing of the existing 6" DP tech and their low HAA score suggest they're supposed to represent interwar guns like the early 6"/47 or BL 6" Mk.XXIII, which were typically mounted in triple turrets. And if those guns are considered DP, then the same logic should extend to the British and Japanese 8" guns (the early variants, at least) since those were meant to be used in the exact same manner. Whether either of these are actually viable is, in my opinion, irrelevant to the discussion; the devs have already decided that 6" DP guns are worth implementing, and the devs have never let obvious impracticality get in the way of a cool feature. |
|
|
|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Feb 13, 2022 3:35:52 GMT -6
As in RTW2 all AA guns have to be DP guns, I would think 4'DP are made possible so early in the game because they mean to be just plain 4'AA. But I'd be very happy if the developers would implement your proposal to delay 4'DP guns for some years, so forcing us to still use no AA medium calibre guns plus 3'AA in our designs during the 1920s. It looks to me a better solution that what's the situation at the moment and easy to implement.
Another possibility but more complicated and not sure if worth the effort would be to allow 4' AA but not unlocking DP until late 20s or even 1930s, so we would still need to add 6' guns in our major units for some time to fence off possible DD attacks. But to do this some changes would be needed in the program, for example adding an AA box next to the DP boxes as we would need to choose if we want the 3 or 4' guns to be AA or not. If building carriers we would need to tick the AA box for main guns (or the box for the secondary guns if we are building carriers with 6 or 8' main guns) and if building capital ships we'd tick the AA box for tertiary guns.
|
|
