|
Post by attemptingsuccess on Apr 24, 2024 10:33:27 GMT -6
Honestly, the problem is that the system does not consider gun caliber or displacement, just TDS and Speed. Obviously bigger guns on a smaller ship with thick TDS might be too narrow at the bow and stern, but since the only considerations are speed and TDS, the limits are overly harsh in a lot of cases.
I think the best fix here is to add gun caliber and displacement into the equation. Like if you are below 35000 tons, have guns of 16 inches, are faster than 23 knots and have TDS 2 (just thowing numbers out here) then you can only have twins fore and aft.
|
|
|
Post by khorne8 on Apr 24, 2024 14:00:37 GMT -6
Honestly, the problem is that the system does not consider gun caliber or displacement, just TDS and Speed. Obviously bigger guns on a smaller ship with thick TDS might be too narrow at the bow and stern, but since the only considerations are speed and TDS, the limits are overly harsh in a lot of cases. I think the best fix here is to add gun caliber and displacement into the equation. Like if you are below 35000 tons, have guns of 16 inches, are faster than 23 knots and have TDS 2 (just thowing numbers out here) then you can only have twins fore and aft. Strongly agree with this. If the player is not evading the problem by building Nelsons or Richelieus, the current implementation encourages strange, ahistorical choices. Because it only looks at number of guns, in the late 1910s and through the 1920s, ABXY ships are strongly incentivized to use the heaviest possible guns so that they only need two per turret, and can then take more TPS. I am not aware of this being a thing historically; so far as I know, in 1920 everyone was using 16" and planning on 18" because of gun power, not strange triple turret vs. TPS considerations. I think a reasonable system would be to calculate a rough barbette diameter (basically number of guns multiplied by caliber of guns), and compare that to a maximum permissible diameter calculated from both speed and displacement.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 24, 2024 15:55:35 GMT -6
Honestly, the problem is that the system does not consider gun caliber or displacement, just TDS and Speed. Obviously bigger guns on a smaller ship with thick TDS might be too narrow at the bow and stern, but since the only considerations are speed and TDS, the limits are overly harsh in a lot of cases. I think the best fix here is to add gun caliber and displacement into the equation. Like if you are below 35000 tons, have guns of 16 inches, are faster than 23 knots and have TDS 2 (just thowing numbers out here) then you can only have twins fore and aft. Strongly agree with this. If the player is not evading the problem by building Nelsons or Richelieus, the current implementation encourages strange, ahistorical choices. Because it only looks at number of guns, in the late 1910s and through the 1920s, ABXY ships are strongly incentivized to use the heaviest possible guns so that they only need two per turret, and can then take more TPS. I am not aware of this being a thing historically; so far as I know, in 1920 everyone was using 16" and planning on 18" because of gun power, not strange triple turret vs. TPS considerations. I think a reasonable system would be to calculate a rough barbette diameter (basically number of guns multiplied by caliber of guns), and compare that to a maximum permissible diameter calculated from both speed and displacement. Yes, i also dont think the game encourages a 4x2 "large gun" loadout, because 17" q1 or even q0 guns become exceedingly rare, which just drives players towards building nelson/Richelieu style 17" armed ships at most, 19" is a realm most people dont touch Instead of building what we historically saw, which was just bigger versions of existing layouts, like the us standard with 4x3, 16" guns, or the Japanese number 13 with 18" guns 4x2 style. Really only the UK adopted an "all forward" layout for their G3/N3s at this time Italy and Russia was also doing general "ABY/ ABXY" designs, while France was playing around with whatever the Normandie class was, though some design experimentation into quads and all forward was started by other nations. But as we know basically everyone (except Germany because economically they had collapsed) was focusing/planning for up to 18" armed ships, due to the size of these weapons most had plans for them in twin and sometimes triple turrets This was mostly from the fact that it was observed during Jutland that A the main guns were the primary deciding factor for who won the fight B the British 15" guns were significantly stronger than the 13,5" and especially the 12" in damage on target after hit, whether the armor was penetrated or not C not a single penetrating hit was scored against the main armor of any ship. We can see that this lesson was being learned even during world war 1, with 1916 German designs having 42cm guns (16,5") the German guns of 16,5" having working fuses would most likely have easily cut through the, at the time British armor at Jutland, though of course this design would be far too late, with even the German 15" guns being too late. We can also see the secondary armament shrinking, as the main guns turned out to be the primary weapons, and secondaries turned out mostly not very effective. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Apr 29, 2024 14:37:28 GMT -6
Does anyone have information on the torpedo protection depth and effectiveness of the British and Japanese "Fast" battkeships and how they compare to their slower contemporaries? Namely the QE's and R's with design speed of 25 and 23 kts (though none of the ships achieved their intended design speeds) and the Fuso, Ise, and Nagato classes with 23/23/26.5 kts. If they are comparable to the slower ships then that should put the nail in the coffin for this excessive limitation that really ought to be only for EXTREMELY fast ships of the time over 30kts like the which were only the Pensacola class cruisers and the proposed designs for the Lexington-class battlecruisers. Friedman's "The British Battleship 1906-1946" has plan drawings showing the TPS of the Queen Elizabeth and R Class ships, but the only copy I have access to at the moment is on my phone, so this will be very rough data. The depth for the Queen Elizabeth Class at the narrowest point abreast her forward magazines appears to be almost exactly equal to that abreast the forward end of her forward boiler room. That probably includes a semi-sacrificial wing compartment abreast the magazines, and I would hate to give a depth, as it's a very rough measurement.
|
|
|
Post by director on May 2, 2024 16:11:28 GMT -6
christian - Yes, for other nations, other considerations outweighed the advantages of the all-forward arrangement. But the US and Japan did conduct extensive studies of all-forward gun arrangements. Drachinifel has done some Youtube videos on the development of the North Carolina and Yamato classes that are most interesting. If you haven't seen them, I recommend them. I agree that the current restriction on triple turrets and TBD systems is perhaps too strict. I know the Salt Lake City class had to forego triple turrets fore and aft because of hull width, but I'm not aware of other ships being affected in that way. My understanding was that Britain and Japan preferred the twin turret for ergonomic reasons and because it limited the number of guns lost if a turret went down, not because hulls were too narrow for triple turrets.
|
|