Are CAs in 1906-1940s really just useless?

[raymart999]

Are CAs in the dreadnought age really just worthless to use unless there is a naval treaty? Capital ships like BBs and BCs are very expensive and yet as Germany or Britain I need some good ships that can protect my colonies from the other side of the globe while my expensive BCs just stay in Reserve or mothball in the docks.

So I'm planning to build some CAs, probably design them like the Helgoland class BBs but way smaller, is this worth it or would it be a waste of resources and time?

[spitfire97]

The thing is if a CA meets a BC that's faster than it, the CA is just dead meat. The AI isn't shy about sending BCs out to colonies so you're gonna need to design the CA to be quicker than any BC you foresee it fighting (which makes them expensive) or send your BCs out in wartime anyway. Preferably both. But if you're designing a ship just to protect colonies in peacetime so you can keep your big expensive ships in reserve, why not just build CLs or even gunboats? They do that job just as well and they do it cheaper.

[brygun]

A CA at 2/3 tonnage or less of a BC is an affordable way to have an initial defense of colonial waters. Basically it requires an enemy power to send a BX grade unit, possibly with fleet, over to the colony. That takes time and money.

A CA supported by 3-6+ DDs can confound such a small segment of the enemy fleet. No you won't win a toe to toe punch-me-punch-you fight. What works is the CA drives back their DD and CL screen so your DD can make a torp run. If its not clean break off. The enemy BX will have turned. This will cause a delay. Enough delay and you win by stalemate.

I have used the CA + DD tactic to fend off invasions even into the missile age.

The counter points within Mahan are the stronger navy wants a direct large confrontation while the lesser force disperses.

[director]

Feb 25, 2024 2:01:27 GMT -6 raymart999 said:

Are CAs in the dreadnought age really just worthless to use unless there is a naval treaty? Capital ships like BBs and BCs are very expensive and yet as Germany or Britain I need some good ships that can protect my colonies from the other side of the globe while my expensive BCs just stay in Reserve or mothball in the docks.

So I'm planning to build some CAs, probably design them like the Helgoland class BBs but way smaller, is this worth it or would it be a waste of resources and time?

In my current Italy game, I keep at least one CA in the Far East, with a couple of CLs, to provide some support against France and Russia. The current game year is 1936; the CA I have out there is a rebuilt almost-twenty-year-old ship. Once it ages out, I'll have some adequate CLs to send in its place.

At home, my CA squadron is assigned to screen my carrier group. They have 9x8" all-forward, 4" dual-purpose guns, and 5 or 6 floatplanes for scouting.

Before the airplane revolution, i build a modest number of decent CAs (8x8" or so) to use as raider/trade protection. That seems to stop the endless spamming of one KE versus enemy CLs, CAs and BCs.



I agree that whatever you send overseas needs to be fast enough to escape the ten CAs or the BC group the AI will send against you.

[krawa]

I would consider CAs useless from 1906 until ~1920. In the early 20s you can usually design something useful (30kn, Long Range for Raiding or Trade Protection) at ~1/3 the displacement of a concurrent BC, anything larger drains to many resources from building capital ships.
For protecting the colonies I would rather send one or two no longer 1st line B, BB or BC, along with a couple of older CL for scouting. The idea is to send a large enough force that no single mondern ship can easily dispatch your forces, but not so large that you feel the drain on your main theatres.

[pratapon51]

The AI is fond of building super large cruisers from the 1940s onwards, so in my opinion player CAs are still not that great past that date.

It's better to keep/build BXs that will eat any 10" gun super cruiser for lunch rather than attempt to compete with them 1:1 should the missiles and jets run out and combat devolves back to gun warfare.

[garrisonchisholm]

My early move that sets me up for easy victories is to have a single division of very large and fast cruisers, hopefully by 1896. They sweep the field in cruiser engagements as their speed and "hull points" are a thing that the AI can't match with legacy designs. I don't consider them useless until 1925-ish. I would call a good CA critical in the early period, and secondly a similar CL.

[Nicholas]

Feb 25, 2024 2:01:27 GMT -6 raymart999 said:

Are CAs in the dreadnought age really just worthless to use unless there is a naval treaty? Capital ships like BBs and BCs are very expensive and yet as Germany or Britain I need some good ships that can protect my colonies from the other side of the globe while my expensive BCs just stay in Reserve or mothball in the docks.

So I'm planning to build some CAs, probably design them like the Helgoland class BBs but way smaller, is this worth it or would it be a waste of resources and time?

Eh, not really in my opinion. Legacy CAs are meant to fulfill the bare minimum foreign tonnage requirements during peacetime, chase down raiders, invade enemy colonies and support the battlefleet during wartime. As Britain, I'd modernize them when oil firing becomes available with no CA replacements being designed until superimposed turrets become available. I expect my legacy CAs to fight every enemy ship short of BBs and BCs and they do so with distinction every time. It's the result of a well designed ship going up against a hodgepodge of randomly generated designs.

Without the details of a Helgoland type CA I'd have to say it's a waste of resources and time considering when such a design would be available, how long design and construction would take place and what new technologies that would be viable that such a design would be without.

Furthermore as Britain, I'm rather taken with improving the defense of the dominions by creating fleet units based in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and India (despite India not being a dominion until 1947, I'd be more than delighted to push for dominion status at the turn of the 20th century if that meant one more BC) centered around a BC or two.

[peace]

I would say only Britain could afford to create that beast of a CA in the early years.

I also use mostly KE and CL for FP and use CA's primarily in divisions supporting BB divisions along with some CL div and DD div when I get them. I do not use CA's alone except old ones in FP or reserves at home.I have not yet built dedicated CA for raiders or TP, expensive CL's seem to work for me in the early years.

[gornik]

I use them every game, though I usually play at largest possible budget, so their building is affordable even for weak Powers. And Rear-Adm. difficulty is needed for full using their potential in fleet battles.

1906: Instead of first generation BC (4-6x11") I build 2-4 of all-10" or all-9" Bluchers. Their goals:
- Generate Cruiser battles with legacy enemies. There are usually plenty of them till 1920. And every meeting with them brings me free VP & prestige.
- Anti-Raiders. Any 1-1 fight is clear win (except that deadly "randomtorpedo"  cases).
- Form "second fast squad". Kill old Bs, finish earliest BC in grand clashes. My CA has enough protection from 6" secondaries, and main hits are rare enough.
- Platform for future rebuild. CA is large and fast enough to become first CV.
Their service usually ends nearly 1930 as colonial flagships.

1920+: series of "modern" CA every 15-20 years with 8-16(yes) guns of best quality, and 3-4 floatplanes/helos. Their goals:
- Once again, generate Cruiser battles. Enemy build CA, so I need them too, to keep my CLs afloat.
- Scout division for BC force. In that period battlecruisers often start battle quite far from main fleet, so they have better position for air scouting, while their... agile nature prevent me from assigning them proper CV division. 
- AA core for light forces.
- Freeing main Line from casing and finishing cripples.
- Protectors of CV squadrons. Heavy enough to confront light divisions, strong enough to get some beating from random BC.
- Future flagships of colonial squadrons
- Future AA missile carriers!

[tendravina]

Feb 28, 2024 12:49:45 GMT -6 gornik said:

I use them every game, though I usually play at largest possible budget, so their building is affordable even for weak Powers. And Rear-Adm. difficulty is needed for full using their potential in fleet battles.

1906: Instead of first generation BC (4-6x11") I build 2-4 of all-10" or all-9" Bluchers. Their goals:
- Generate Cruiser battles with legacy enemies. There are usually plenty of them till 1920. And every meeting with them brings me free VP & prestige.
- Anti-Raiders. Any 1-1 fight is clear win (except that deadly "randomtorpedo"  cases).
- Form "second fast squad". Kill old Bs, finish earliest BC in grand clashes. My CA has enough protection from 6" secondaries, and main hits are rare enough.
- Platform for future rebuild. CA is large and fast enough to become first CV.
Their service usually ends nearly 1930 as colonial flagships.

1920+: series of "modern" CA every 15-20 years with 8-16(yes) guns of best quality, and 3-4 floatplanes/helos. Their goals:
- Once again, generate Cruiser battles. Enemy build CA, so I need them too, to keep my CLs afloat.
- Scout division for BC force. In that period battlecruisers often start battle quite far from main fleet, so they have better position for air scouting, while their... agile nature prevent me from assigning them proper CV division. 
- AA core for light forces.
- Freeing main Line from casing and finishing cripples.
- Protectors of CV squadrons. Heavy enough to confront light divisions, strong enough to get some beating from random BC.
- Future flagships of colonial squadrons
- Future AA missile carriers!

Sure, that's fine, but if you can do that, why don't you build a BC by upping the caliber a bit? Your 10-inch "BC-lite" could become an 11-inch BC with the full 12 or so blockade points. This is honestly my problem with CAs: With CAs, for a similar or slightly increased cost, you could probably build a BC that beats it (and has some utility in the battle line as well)

As to why you can do this, BCs and CAs reportedly share the same or similar slots in the battle generator, so you should not lose out on battles with BCs

[gornik]

Feb 28, 2024 18:57:37 GMT -6 tendravina said:

Feb 28, 2024 12:49:45 GMT -6 gornik said:

Sure, that's fine, but if you can do that, why don't you build a BC by upping the caliber a bit? Your 10-inch "BC-lite" could become an 11-inch BC with the full 12 or so blockade points. This is honestly my problem with CAs: With CAs, for a similar or slightly increased cost, you could probably build a BC that beats it (and has some utility in the battle line as well)

As to why you can do this, BCs and CAs reportedly share the same or similar slots in the battle generator, so you should not lose out on battles with BCs

If I build BC, they'll take part in actions with similar enemies (so with higher risk and lower profit), while rapid progress make them completely obsolete even before decade ends (and then their "BC" status only charges them in perils in company with 28kn 14" leviathans). At the same time, CA will normally get larger bunch of weaker enemies for lunch. Sometimes, there may be also squadron of old Bs as "support force", which gives me opportunity to cut another part from enemy main fleet. Even lone early BC sometimes found, that 6x11" is not enough, when enemy has both equal speed and two of 8 (or even 10)x10" broadsides (battle generator seem balancing BC presence, giving me extra CAs. And this is what I've need). Thus they are net more effective in blockading (due to sum of enemy Blockade Points, destroyed in battles). Their record was 4 CA, 2 CL and 1 "B"(coastal defence) in a single battle, with 2B (normal), 2CA and CL crippled, done with 3 weakest CA of this origin (8x9" broadside).

[tendravina]

Mar 2, 2024 6:32:13 GMT -6 gornik said:

Feb 28, 2024 18:57:37 GMT -6 tendravina said:

Sure, that's fine, but if you can do that, why don't you build a BC by upping the caliber a bit? Your 10-inch "BC-lite" could become an 11-inch BC with the full 12 or so blockade points. This is honestly my problem with CAs: With CAs, for a similar or slightly increased cost, you could probably build a BC that beats it (and has some utility in the battle line as well)

As to why you can do this, BCs and CAs reportedly share the same or similar slots in the battle generator, so you should not lose out on battles with BCs

If I build BC, they'll take part in actions with similar enemies (so with higher risk and lower profit), while rapid progress make them completely obsolete even before decade ends (and then their "BC" status only charges them in perils in company with 28kn 14" leviathans). At the same time, CA will normally get larger bunch of weaker enemies for lunch. Sometimes, there may be also squadron of old Bs as "support force", which gives me opportunity to cut another part from enemy main fleet. Even lone early BC sometimes found, that 6x11" is not enough, when enemy has both equal speed and two of 8 (or even 10)x10" broadsides (battle generator seem balancing BC presence, giving me extra CAs. And this is what I've need). Thus they are net more effective in blockading (due to sum of enemy Blockade Points, destroyed in battles). Their record was 4 CA, 2 CL and 1 "B"(coastal defence) in a single battle, with 2B (normal), 2CA and CL crippled, done with 3 weakest CA of this origin (8x9" broadside).

I'll explain why this is fallacious as I've explained to Cheatereater:

CAs are considered capital ships by the battle generator, and as a result you see CA/BC fights with some regularity. Although it is true that you see CAs less often in BC fights compared to BCs, this scenario is much worse for a CA than a large-caliber BC, as the latter can fight back to some extent. To make the fact that BCs get the same scenarios as CAs, I've seen BCs quite frequently pop up in light forces battles against my CLs.

In addition, there is no gun matching, so speaking of 17-inch guns penetrating our own BCs is not a reasonable mark against them; any ship under consideration will have to withstand 17-inch gunfire, which is just not feasible for a ship in the role. 

CAs are also less efficient at blockading, since BCs have twice the blockade points, and less efficient at anti-raider duties, since you only get one raider battle per turn.



As for you-specific complaints:

Speaking of Bs, yes, in the pre-dreadnought era, CAs are pretty good (in fact, they're all you have if you want a BC-like ship). Hell, I beat your record with a full 4 Bs killed in one battle, with 6x9" broadsides. And I agree that 6x11" is not good enough against two 10x10" ships. That said, by the time when we get to our 17-inch guns, we already have 12x10" and 16x10" ships and progress slows down in the 1920s, so the large-caliber cruiser killers can last for decades with proper refits. Also, for 10x10" you're likely getting 8x11", so they're still likely better


Also, you're getting enemy CAs in the 1910s? That's strange.

[ewaldvonkleist]

Imho, yes. I usually only play with DDs and BBs/BCs and CVs. Sometimes anti-DD CLs if I feel like micromanaging them.

[director]

tendravina -

I'll explain why this is fallacious as I've explained to Cheatereater

Matters of opinion cannot be fallacious as that implies the facts are wrong. We all have the same set of facts (IE game rules) but we have different ideas as to importance and value.

In addition, there is no gun matching, so speaking of 17-inch guns penetrating our own BCs is not a reasonable mark against them; any ship under consideration will have to withstand 17-inch gunfire, which is just not feasible for a ship in the role.

You are correct in saying the game does not deliberately match gun caliber in your ships with gun caliber in opposing ships when constructing a mission. It does tend to match type to type, giving both sides the same sort of force mix, and it does give the AI side an advantage in power and numbers. I can attest that the AI very often builds ships with larger gun caliber than mine, and since the AI builds BCs with un-historical monomaniacal fervor that only Jackie Fisher could match, my BCs are almost always outnumbered, and it gets worse as damage accumulates.

I have very often been glad to have a squadron of CAs to help support my outnumbered BCs, and even if they take some damage they have set fires, wrecked control stations and absorbed enemy attention while my big ships do the work. I wouldn't replace my BCs with CAs, but neither would I eliminate all my CAs except in the most dire financial situation.

You are correct in saying that no-one can feasibly build a ship to withstand 17" gunfire. You are in error when you say all ships will have to withstand it, as not all enemy ships will have that firepower. The compromises in speed and firepower would be immense for such armor and the vulnerability of stacks, rudders and control points like bridges would remain. It isn't necessary to blow holes in thick armor to win a battle - a mission kill will work just as well, and open the enemy up to torpedo attack. There are reasons why, in real history, armor topped out at 12"-14" (with the exception of Yamato, not that it did her much good).

Like gornik, I find CAs useful in some situations and I devote some tonnage and wealth to building a few. If you don't find them useful, do not build them. But, please, don't tell me I'm wrong or 'fallacious' when I very clearly know I have good reason to construct some. My reasons are stated in another post, higher up. If you find it helpful, good, and if not then build something else.

So by all means let us know what works for you. I'm ready and willing to learn. But let's not get into a 'my way is the only true path' discussion.