|
Post by director on Jan 22, 2024 9:01:24 GMT -6
I was approaching it from a gameplay perspective - if we stick to the letter, then game would treat the 6-inch Mogami and 8-inch Mogami differently for battle generator. Not sure if it is fully reflected in the game, but I would take a Brooklyn or Cleveland over County, York, Myoko or Tone Yeah, I get you. I like a Cleveland or Town style 12x6" armament, myself, especially since the battle generator seems to think every action takes place at night, in dense fog, while raining. In restricted visibility and at close range, fast-firing 6" guns will do a lot of damage. 8" does have an advantage in range and hitting power, but 8, 9 or 10 8" guns isn't going to give you as many hits as 12x6". 12x8" (or 10") calls for a very large ship, and I'd rather have two smaller ones. My preferred CA design for the modern era is to use 9x8" in all-forward triples and add a floatplane hangar (and catapults) for 5-6 scout planes aft. Once missile tech arrives it is easy to rip out the hangar and add a missile launcher or two. I am now convinced that, in RtW3, airplane wings cause bad weather, as my aircraft are always grounded and useless. The sole purpose of building carriers is so that the bad weather will prevent their use by the enemy, too.
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Apr 2, 2024 2:46:24 GMT -6
It'd be nice to have the option of extra protection over the rudder and machinery spaces (as part of magazine box protection schemes).
|
|
|
Post by tendravina on Apr 2, 2024 11:18:15 GMT -6
I was approaching it from a gameplay perspective - if we stick to the letter, then game would treat the 6-inch Mogami and 8-inch Mogami differently for battle generator. Not sure if it is fully reflected in the game, but I would take a Brooklyn or Cleveland over County, York, Myoko or Tone Yeah, I get you. I like a Cleveland or Town style 12x6" armament, myself, especially since the battle generator seems to think every action takes place at night, in dense fog, while raining. In restricted visibility and at close range, fast-firing 6" guns will do a lot of damage. 8" does have an advantage in range and hitting power, but 8, 9 or 10 8" guns isn't going to give you as many hits as 12x6". 12x8" (or 10") calls for a very large ship, and I'd rather have two smaller ones. My preferred CA design for the modern era is to use 9x8" in all-forward triples and add a floatplane hangar (and catapults) for 5-6 scout planes aft. Once missile tech arrives it is easy to rip out the hangar and add a missile launcher or two. I am now convinced that, in RtW3, airplane wings cause bad weather, as my aircraft are always grounded and useless. The sole purpose of building carriers is so that the bad weather will prevent their use by the enemy, too. Eh... I don't know about you, but I can fit in 12x8" or 9x10" pretty easily on a reasonable combat displacement. 15500 tons is the minimum anyways since before then armor is prohibitively expensive and heavy. That said, I tend not to build heavy cruisers after battlecruisers arrive, but it's the same old armor formula before and after 1905. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 5, 2024 11:40:32 GMT -6
I tend to prefer smaller cruisers, so 12-13k tons and 9x8" works for me.
To be honest, my 8"-gun cruisers are used to screen my carriers and scout with floatplanes... though I have put them into combat when things got desperate.
To each his or her own. If you have methods that work for you, then bravo!
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 24, 2024 12:49:18 GMT -6
Yeah. Medium HE guns also have a not-insignificant chance of penetrating 1-2" D or TT, so even 6" HE is a threat to such thin armor. While this "should" be uncommon in early era, it does happen enough that it's better to armor the areas more than historical levels. It might also be a flaw of the damage model used in game. this isent the case after HE nerfs, 1" deck will protect against any HE shell up to and including 9" per my testing 14" will pen about half the time (HE) the biggest worry is splinters, but considering the weight of deck armor i would just live with it and sacrifice the extra deck, and spend it on much thicker armor elsewhere. better the turrets and belt are somewhat/fully immune to 6" fire than your deck is immune to splinters and 6" plunging fire. but nothing else is. Additionally, you want to generally use slope deck on light cruisers as their armor is limited to 3" belt, which is not enough, so 3" belt + 1" deck is alot more resistant against 5" and 6" AP, additionally for more coverage you can use narrow belt + 3" BE + 1" DE this also gives some splinter protection to DE which is otherwise vulnerable here is a 12k 1955 light cruiser using said scheme. immune between 9000 and 14000 yards (in reality closer to 7000-14000 yards) 0,5" more deck armor would put it 350 tons overweight if you want this design scaled for 1945 or earlier just reduce speed/remove autoloader for 6" main guns. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by khorne8 on Apr 25, 2024 11:18:19 GMT -6
Additionally, you want to generally use slope deck on light cruisers as their armor is limited to 3" belt, which is not enough, so 3" belt + 1" deck is alot more resistant against 5" and 6" AP, additionally for more coverage you can use narrow belt + 3" BE + 1" DE this also gives some splinter protection to DE which is otherwise vulnerable here is a 12k 1955 light cruiser using said scheme. immune between 9000 and 14000 yards (in reality closer to 7000-14000 yards) Perhaps I'm missing something, but the attached design does not use sloped deck.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 26, 2024 10:39:20 GMT -6
Additionally, you want to generally use slope deck on light cruisers as their armor is limited to 3" belt, which is not enough, so 3" belt + 1" deck is alot more resistant against 5" and 6" AP, additionally for more coverage you can use narrow belt + 3" BE + 1" DE this also gives some splinter protection to DE which is otherwise vulnerable here is a 12k 1955 light cruiser using said scheme. immune between 9000 and 14000 yards (in reality closer to 7000-14000 yards) Perhaps I'm missing something, but the attached design does not use sloped deck. you arent, im just stupid, sorry about that here is the sloped deck ship had to remove an inch of turret armor to fit it on the tonnage and 10 less secondary rpg, so it does weight slightly more than an AON equivelant Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by khorne8 on Apr 26, 2024 15:10:07 GMT -6
here is the sloped deck ship had to remove an inch of turret armor to fit it on the tonnage and 10 less secondary rpg, so it does weight slightly more than an AON equivelant Fair enough. How do the various missile warheads interact with cruiser armor? I understand them to be simulated as very large HE shells; is the difference between a 1" and 2" deck going to make any difference there?
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 26, 2024 15:20:44 GMT -6
here is the sloped deck ship had to remove an inch of turret armor to fit it on the tonnage and 10 less secondary rpg, so it does weight slightly more than an AON equivelant Fair enough. How do the various missile warheads interact with cruiser armor? I understand them to be simulated as very large HE shells; is the difference between a 1" and 2" deck going to make any difference there? generally 2" and 3" will make you very resistant, as even heavy HSSMs seem to underperform since the 0,37 HE nerf in my testing i got no penetrations on 3-5" armor with over 20 hits to armor. 1" will get penned about 40-50% of the time This is with the 1955 Heat warhead tech.
|
|
|
Post by khorne8 on Apr 26, 2024 16:05:44 GMT -6
generally 2" and 3" will make you very resistant, as even heavy HSSMs seem to underperform since the 0,37 HE nerf in my testing i got no penetrations on 3-5" armor with over 20 hits to armor. 1" will get penned about 40-50% of the time This is with the 1955 Heat warhead tech. Are HSSMs still worth it for the heavy structure damage per hit, or does this change make MSSMs preferable now?
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 26, 2024 16:25:12 GMT -6
generally 2" and 3" will make you very resistant, as even heavy HSSMs seem to underperform since the 0,37 HE nerf in my testing i got no penetrations on 3-5" armor with over 20 hits to armor. 1" will get penned about 40-50% of the time This is with the 1955 Heat warhead tech. Are HSSMs still worth it for the heavy structure damage per hit, or does this change make MSSMs preferable now? Havent tested, but they still do decent structure damage.
|
|
|
Post by khorne8 on Apr 29, 2024 11:53:56 GMT -6
Havent tested, but they still do decent structure damage. Sure, but I'm wondering exactly how HSSM and MSSM compare now. What I'm really after is an authoritative table that gives the various missiles' speeds, warheads, etc. I'd like to use that as a reference against their weight and topweight when making design decisions. My highly unscientific observation is that HSSMs do seem to have a practical advantage over MSSMs in that enemy DDs sink quickly after HSSM hits, so HSSM-heavy fleets suffer less from overkill.
|
|