|
Post by tendravina on Mar 8, 2024 22:29:01 GMT -6
tendravina - 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. 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 1. if the AI is outbuilding and out-gunning you in terms of battlecruisers, I find this puzzling unless you are playing a nation that is quite a fair bit weaker. You should be able to either build to comparable amounts, or build to outgun them. And, in addition, this depends on the time period, as the BC/BB distinction becomes a formality in the 1920s; the game likes to tell me that Japan's 8x15", 28 knot ships are so much more battlecruiser-like than my 7x17", 27 knot ships are with the same armor. In short, if you're playing after 1920, the AI might be outbuilding you in BCs because ships that in real life would have been considered normal fast battleships, like Iowa, are considered BCs in game. 2. I will not deny that a squadron of CAs can be helpful at the moment in battle. The problem is that the squadron of CAs often replaces a squadron of BCs due to how the generator is set up, not adds onto one. In that case, if you had to pick between a BC and a CA squadron, which one would you choose? That is the fallacy I intended to highlight: Just because you see a CA division doesn't mean there would have been nothing otherwise 3. The whole thing about standing up to 17-inch gunfire was meant to be sarcastic. As in if your BC design has to withstand 17-inch gunfire, your CA has to if it shares the same role. Both premises are false: neither your BC nor your CA has to withstand 17-inch gunfire. Just to clarify, there is another role for BCs, and that is main line combat. And there, you can logically build up to 50000 tons or even higher, a tonnage which allows you to withstand 17-inch shells while having your own 17-inch guns. So it is infeasible in the role of the heavy cruiser and heavy cruiser role BCs (think Alaska), but not front line ships. And a fourth thing: we do have to clarify the precise era we're in, as I've mentioned. Pre-1903 CAs are a pretty good investment, but after unlocking BCs CAs just tend to fall to the wayside, fulfilling mostly secondary duties like convoy protection. Even there, apparently you are better off building a panzerschiffe-type BC rather than a CA for your new builds, as I've seen done sometimes, but this isn't something I have tried myself. Side note: Actually, 12-14 inch armor is sufficient for this purpose, because the game has lesser penetration values than real life; 13-inch belt protects from 17-inch guns from around 20000 yards in-game in the 1920s. This is true in general; the game just does not have the same trade-offs as in real life (it is a game after all). In addition, apparently the game considers rudders to be protected by BE and DE, when in real life they would have had their own armor Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Mar 9, 2024 20:23:11 GMT -6
Really, the answer to all fast ship issues is HMS Incomparable, couple of 20in guns and a healthy dose of speed, no flaws whatsoever.
But if we're being serious here, I think that CA's can generally be built throughout the game. I'm not the type to try for the best possible fleet, so I'm content to build fairly large numbers of CA's and CL's, and it works out fine for me.
That being said, I would like to try a game where I just stick 20in guns wherever possible and seeing how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on Mar 10, 2024 5:58:21 GMT -6
And a fourth thing: we do have to clarify the precise era we're in, as I've mentioned. Pre-1903 CAs are a pretty good investment, but after unlocking BCs CAs just tend to fall to the wayside, fulfilling mostly secondary duties like convoy protection. Even there, apparently you are better off building a panzerschiffe-type BC rather than a CA for your new builds, as I've seen done sometimes, but this isn't something I have tried myself. Thank good the title thread give us a year range for reference
I do not think CA are useless in the dreadnought era, is just that if they get caugth by a BC they are toast. I usually don't find then worth the cost when max ship speed is around 28 knots, but once I can build resonably fast CA I tend to build a few. TP for once is something I like to use then as for CL a BC is an overkill, I think is generally better not to have BC outside of the battle generator. Cost is really what make the case for CA as a resonably armed BC is pretty damn expensive.
However I would say there is one type of CA I find useless: Deustchland class types. The weigth limit and the low salvo size for the 10+ calibre guns isn't worth the cost, as they will either end up slow or very poorly armoured.
|
|
|
Post by kriegsmeister on Mar 10, 2024 8:51:45 GMT -6
IMO, absolutely useless between 1906ish till 1918 when you get the tech for "Superimposed guns on CA". Being limited to amidships or wing turrets severely hinders CA's as I find end-on firepower much more important for cruisers since they spend most of their time chasing or being chased. They shouldn't be turning broadside that often to fight in a battleline. Using wing turrets just eats up to much weight to get an effective broadside at the detriment of speed and armor. And amidships turrets limit your fighting angles too much.
AVY with Triples was decent if you were willing to forgo torpedo protection, but 1) very risky and 2) it just isnt an option anymore in the most recent patch with changes to V turrets only unlocking with X turret rather than 3 Centerline.
But once you do get the Superimposed on CA tech they are great to have. I generally build lots of small 7in/8in armed ships in lieu of CLs and a handful of large 9in ships as my colonial Squadron flagships
|
|
|
Post by cheatereater on Mar 12, 2024 5:41:12 GMT -6
1906-1940s is a huge time range, and the utility of CAs in my games varies tremendously during this period. The overall changes as technology progresses:
• <1900-1905: CAs are my "fast" ships, so they are able to defeat enemy CAs and CLs, or in a fleet battle they can be tasked with scouting or mopping up a crippled B. Useful to have some and focus on quality. • Around 1905: BCs will become available; the true "unlock" is Ship Design 4, medium wing turrets, in 1901. These early BCs are just bigger CAs, with restrictions removed on caliber and armor, so I think of them as "heavy CAs" in this timeframe. Technology is not good enough yet to let them get enough guns and armor to even participate in the battle line, but they will replace CAs. I will definitely want to pare down my CAs at this point, perhaps keeping only a few of the most modern ones.
• 1905-1920: BCs get caught in an arms race, where they end up bigger and bigger, better arms and more heavily armored. This greatly raises their expense, so that by the 1920 CAs as a cheaper option start to look useful again in some situations.
• 1920-1940: The gap widens between BCs and CAs, while the gap closes between BCs and BBs. By 1940, my BB and BC designs are mostly converging as I make fewer speed vs. armor vs. guns tradeoffs. But CAs gain superimposed turrets, higher-quality mid-caliber guns, DP weapons and floatplanes that makes them much more capable. And as carriers come into their own, the focus slowly shifts away from BBs and BCs
• 1940-1950+: Carriers are the main capital ship now. CAs are much more useful because they are not so expensive and make good escorts for carriers, and they will start mounting serious missile firepower past 1955.
That's the tech background, but their utility for your game varies a lot depending on your situation and playstyle. Here are some points I consider post BC:
1. I always keep a few CAs around, as they tend to get roped into cruiser vs. cruiser action; I can normally find some enemy CAs or even CLs to beat up on, even in 1910-1915. I do not find that my CAs get pitted against enemy BCs, I don't believe there is any "capital ship" slot that includes CAs and looking over past games does not suggest this.
2. CAs will eventually become much cheaper than a BC, and they can be built fast enough to run away from them. I end up having to keep many BCs near the fleet to counter enemy BCs, as BCs seem to get into fleet actions a lot more than CAs do. But if I need something to cover colonial bases, CAs can do the job; if I need TP or raiders, CAs can do the job. If I need something in a far away base that can at least put up a fight against an invasion, a CA can do the job. 3. CAs are not so caught up in the capital ship arms race, which gives more leeway for tonnage devoted to utility. This includes floatplanes or HAA armament, and ultimately makes them useful escorts to have; I like to pair CAs with carriers for that reason.
So for me, I find making sure I have a few good (for the time), modernized CAs going into 1905 helpful, and replacing them maybe in 1910 and 1915; by 1920, the technology has advanced enough to make them more useful in my games, and I start building them in earnest again.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 12, 2024 6:31:16 GMT -6
My answer to the initial question is that heavy cruisers are not useless, its your strategic and operational requirements that maybe poor. It is those two analysis's that generate the requirements and hence the specifications for the heavy cruisers. In point of fact, for the entire navy. You have to do an assessmenmt of the geography of the nation you are playing and generate your geostrategy from that assessment. This geostrategy will or should generate the operational requirements. The naval designs will be developed from those operational requirements or at least they should. Question: Is the nation you are playing, a continental power like Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia or is it a maritime power like Great Britain, U.S. Japan or Italy? This is where you start but you must prioritize your main opponents. Is Germany, GB main enemy? Is Russia or China, Japan's or is it France and GB.
Anyway, just my opinion and this is the way I play the game. BTW, I don't use cruisers for trade warfare; just submarines and AMC's.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 14, 2024 15:14:34 GMT -6
Ok, so you have chosen the nation that you will play, and checked the map to see whether it is a continental power or a maritime power. From there, you investigate the body or bodies of water that you border on. Are they blue water oceans, narrow seas like the Med or Baltic, what are they. From here, you examine and decide your possible opponents. Then,, you develop your ideas on whether you want to be a world power or just what I call a "area power". It does make a difference. Now,, you begin to develop your operational requirements: trade lane protection, narrow passages protection, etc. This analysis will evolve over time. Now, it's time to decide on your naval requirements which will drive your building specifications. Do I build many battleships, or battle cruisers with lots of KE's, destroyers,light cruisers and heavy cruisers; what will their specs be: speed, protection and firepower plus range. Do I need medium range in all or just medium range in some and short range in others. (You also have to decide on what your possible opponents might be deciding, this is where it gets fun).
Some other factors that enter into your decision making process are "politics: Prestige if you will" and economics. Can I really afford the kind of fleet I think or have decided I need. Another issue is whether your pursuit of a naval world power should be serious or as Tirpitz said "systematic demonstration". In other words, I put together Naval War Plans but really never build the ships. Which brings me to another question:
If I design very expensive and powerful ships but I don't build them, will that have an effect on the AI in the game? I don't know the answer to that, but it might be something to pursue.
So, historically navies had three jobs to perform: 1. Trade protection 2. Invasion transportation and protection 3. Invasion prevention. This is historically of course.
Well, there it is, Enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by tendravina on Mar 14, 2024 21:12:57 GMT -6
Will definitely say though that as the Russia player, you are definitely a maritime power, as you have possessions stretched across three sea zones (Baltic, North Europe, Northeastern Asia) separated by five, and you want to enter a fourth sea zone, namely the Mediterranean. You rival Japan, which is in Northeastern Asia, but your build area is the Baltic, and this often results in having to garrison everything. This is worsened by the fact that Germany often blocks off the Danish straits, blocking new builds in the Baltic from reaching important combat zones in Northern Europe and Northeastern Asia. In this way Russia is much closer to Great Britain than Germany or even France, which can afford to concentrate in Northern Europe.
This also results in countries like Russia having to fight battles in places like Scotland, or Spain right off Heligoland, as there is no "narrow passages protection"; instead battles are hard-coded into the system, with country-on-country battles (found in WarInfo) and possession-linked battles (found in MapData). So if you are Italy, there is no way of preventing Austria-Hungary from breaking out of the Adriatic, and instead you fight outside.
On another note, trade lane protection mostly falls to a combination of ASW DDs, small "deterrence" CAs (a role filled by the likes of Leander and Arethusa IRL), and hunter-killer BCs anyways, not full-size CAs. You could also consider a fourth type of ship, a small pocket BC, along the lines of the Deutschland cruisers IRL but classed as BCs. This, for all purposes, leaves true CAs without a role.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 16, 2024 9:38:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tendravina on Mar 18, 2024 13:08:09 GMT -6
In terms of Rule the Waves 3, this is simple, but misses the point entirely. If this was a game representative of reality, I wouldn't have lost so many games due to starvation from raiders sinking food ships, especially when neutral Germany borders me, Russia is literally a food exporter. Instead, the game prefers to model each nation as a bunch of settlements only connected by sea, with a metropolis that if not defended starves to death. However, Russia has three of these metropoli, namely Saint Petersburg, Murmansk, and Vladivostok, which again are only connected by sea, and Germany can isolate them if angered. Thus, my idea of a maritime power being a power which has to keep track of multiple sea zones (e.g. the UK, Russia, France, Spain), and a continental power as a power which is fine with just one (e.g. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Japan). China has the special distinction of being a continental power while having two sea zones because those sea zones are adjacent and home zones, allowing them to be served by a single fleet. Okay, that's not exactly true, as the game allows raiding Chinese and Japanese merchants in Northern Europe, but aside from that it is true. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Mar 19, 2024 5:45:49 GMT -6
Russia gets reduced blockade affects due its dispersed geography. That is an abstract method but it is something.
USA has 3 home zones of which NA East and the Caribbean touch but the NA West connection is iffy. Im in a USA game now where I never got Panama (after 1910-1920 spain no longer fights me) so NA West moves in war time take sailing around south America.
The game is focused on a naval fighting not all aspect like the Hearts of Iron series.
On the Asia continent Russia looks big on Mercator projections but its population and economics aren't always going to match China and India. Economics vary the most. The India and Chinese populations are huge and would be horrid for any people to fully absorb.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 19, 2024 6:51:15 GMT -6
I agree with all of you as to how the game depicts Russia. This is a naval war game, and as such, just the access to oceans and seas is important along with a few other aspects. I took a whole semester class at my university in the Soviet Union and believe me, it was complex with physical geography, social geography, political geography, natural resources like iron or and oil along with the ecology of the whole continent. Most of this is not really relevent to the game. We also studied its economics which has change since the class and I have tried to research and understand it. So in the game, I believe that all of this should evolve. Its interesting though.
|
|
|
Post by larcrivereagle on Mar 30, 2024 11:31:06 GMT -6
It may also be worth distinguishing between CAs by how they break the BC classification. CAs with BC guns but limited by tonnage before they become BCs (11" or 12" gun ships limited to around 10k displacement, exact value varies by playthrough, which Ive taken to calling Super Cruisers) and CAs with BC tonnage limited by gun size before they become BCs, (10" or less but above the BC tonnage limit, much easier to make faster, which Ive taken to calling Cruiser Leaders) which seem to be what this thread is discussing most. With the former, the limit past which they become useful is being able to mount 4 main guns above 10". With just 2, their weight of fire is far to low to be worthwhile. These ships do quite well against equivalent tonnages of BC from around the same year as well as normal cruisers, but ironically, they seem to struggle quite a bit against the latter type of cruiser, which can easily dictate the engagement with better speed to catch them when their range advantage is meaningless and quickly beat them to death. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Mar 30, 2024 15:01:46 GMT -6
Just for conversation, these are my early-game "super cruisers" from my current work with the USA. They use the Brandenburg rule regarding -2 quality guns which allow a 3rd turret. When they were launched they could make 23 knots and their BE is 3" while Upper Belt is also 6". They gave excellent service, and are still providing anti-raider work. Yes, a -2q gun is horrible penetrating, but the charge is still large enough to hurt.
...& yes, I too just noticed that the captain's name is Kirk.
...I have to transfer him to the Enterprise, don't I.
mmm. ... after the war, the Enterprise's captain is Above Average and Lucky, and I don't know anything about Kirk yet.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Mar 30, 2024 15:48:58 GMT -6
...& yes, I too just noticed that the captain's name is Kirk.
...I have to transfer him to the Enterprise, don't I.
mmm. ... after the war, the Enterprise's captain is Above Average and Lucky, and I don't know anything about Kirk yet.
Kirk became Captain of the Enterprise after the previous commander was mutilated in a horrible accident. Need an "accident" to happen to the current one. A very convenient accident.
|
|