Late game cruiser design

[khorne8]

Looking for input on a number of late game cruiser design questions. By "late game," I mean once jet aircraft, missiles, and radar directed MAA are all available.

1. For a gun CA's main battery, are 10" guns or autoloaded 8" preferable, and why?
2. Is there any reason to retain a fully automatic 3" secondary battery, or will SAMs and radar directed MAA do?
3. If there is no 3" secondary battery or DP main battery, I understand AA directors to be pointless. Is this correct?
4. Autoloaded 6" guns on CLs seem very effective against DDs. How many guns per CL should be retained for cleanup after the missiles are expended?
5. DP 6" main batteries are heavy and also need AA directors, so it seems preferable to discard DP capability once SAMs are available. Is this correct?
   
6. Is there any reason to use the missile cruisers tech, which allows unarmored CLs? It seems worthwhile to retain some armor against enemy 6" guns, and splinters.
7. Are the lighter aluminum superstructures considered worth the additional fire risk on CLs?
8. Is it worth accepting the penalty to topweight for multiple missile types, or can HSAMs work well enough as SSMs to allow dedicated SSMs to be discarded?
9. Double SAM launchers appear to bring no additional ammunition. So multiple single launchers bring more missiles, for not much additional weight. Is this correct?
10. LSAMs seem terrible due to their restricted firing arcs, while MSAMs and HSAMs have 360° arcs. Is there some use case for them on cruisers that I'm not seeing?

Thanks. Beg pardon for the long list, but this is a lot to test solo. Edited to add even more.

[larcrivereagle]

Apr 22, 2024 15:49:48 GMT -6 khorne8 said:

2. Is there any reason to retain a fully automatic 3" secondary battery, or will SAMs and radar directed MAA do?

The AI will attempt to bomb you with, from my experience, around 20-30% of total strikes, with the rest being missiles. Later in the battle they usually seem to run out of missiles as well. But this could just be down to older carrier designs.
Regarding #3, I'm don't think it's known if AA directors affect LAA, MAA, RMAA or CIWS, and someone please correct me if they do, I'd love to know.
Last time I saw #7 tested the fire risk was completely negligible, though this may have changed in the year or so since
I don't believe #9 is correct, and regardless of if it is you ideally want the minimum number of missile launchers as they seem to be treated as turrets and tend to kill your ship when hit, as they are completely unarmored, they like to explode, and set the ship on fire.
Lastly, LSAMs get arcs similar to main battery guns if placed in A or Y. (This still possible on a carrier)

[pratapon51]

1.) 10" guns would be better, assuming similar tonnage cost. In general, though, it's better to build a small BC(G) than a CA(G) so you decisively outgun enemy cruisers.

2.) Occasionally the AI will deplete missile stocks and resort to glide bombing, so having 'some' HAA in addition to RMAA won't hurt.

3.) AA directors are stated to affect performance of (R)MAA. To what degree is unknown.

5.) 6" DP tends to be rather marginal, better to use single purpose mains on a CL (so you can also use triples) and leave DP, if any, to sec/tertbat.

9.) The second number is the number of reloads, not number of extra missiles. Twins therefore carry more.

10.) Dedicated missile defense, though usually I will put LSAM only on tiny DDs or massive BXs.

[khorne8]

Apr 23, 2024 8:57:39 GMT -6 pratapon51 said:

1.) 10" guns would be better, assuming similar tonnage cost. In general, though, it's better to build a small BC(G) than a CA(G) so you decisively outgun enemy cruisers.

2.) Occasionally the AI will deplete missile stocks and resort to glide bombing, so having 'some' HAA in addition to RMAA won't hurt.

3.) AA directors are stated to affect performance of (R)MAA. To what degree is unknown.

5.) 6" DP tends to be rather marginal, better to use single purpose mains on a CL (so you can also use triples) and leave DP, if any, to sec/tertbat.

9.) The second number is the number of reloads, not number of extra missiles. Twins therefore carry more.

10.) Dedicated missile defense, though usually I will put LSAM only on tiny DDs or massive BXs.

1.) I'm experimenting with the BC(G) vs. CA(G) question. However, I've found that I usually overmatch the enemy missile capability. So I 'outgun' enemy cruisers with CA(G)s very well, by wrecking them with HSAMs. The CA(G) main guns only rarely do anything more than clean up. So, I find it hard to justify the BC(G) cost premium. Do you have a good design to share?

2.) Are SAMs ineffective against bombing? Enough automatic 3" DP barrels to put up decent HAA numbers eats up about as much weight and topweight as another SAM launcher. To put it another way, which is better: one HSAM + automatic 3" secbat, or two HSAM? I'm strongly biased towards more HSAM because they slap surface targets so hard.

3.) For what it's worth, I went looking for an answer to this one before posting, and I found wildly contradictory answers. I've seen devs and/or code-knowers posting here, so if such a person could offer a definitive answer, I'd appreciate it.

10.) I don't see why you'd put LSAMs on a DD. It seems to me that late game DDs are best designed high/low: either 3800 ton MSAM hammers, or cheap and expendable 1800 ton SSM carriers, which are excellent meat shields. The former doesn't need LSAM once MSAMs get antimissile capability, and adding an LSAM to the latter bloats its cost unacceptably.

[larcrivereagle]

Apr 23, 2024 11:07:36 GMT -6 khorne8 said:

2.) Are SAMs ineffective against bombing? Enough automatic 3" DP barrels to put up decent HAA numbers eats up about as much weight and topweight as another SAM launcher. To put it another way, which is better: one HSAM + automatic 3" secbat, or two HSAM? I'm strongly biased towards more HSAM because they slap surface targets so hard.

10.) I don't see why you'd put LSAMs on a DD. It seems to me that late game DDs are best designed high/low: either 3800 ton MSAM hammers, or cheap and expendable 1800 ton SSM carriers, which are excellent meat shields. The former doesn't need LSAM once MSAMs get antimissile capability, and adding an LSAM to the latter bloats its cost unacceptably.

1. I'm not sure you'd call it good, but I have a soft spot for the various maximal CA designs. I'm not actually sure how to share design files on here though.
2. The number of SAMs you can place on a ship caps out for HSAMs and MSAMs at two of each, so larger ships will have displacement that you want to be using for air defense and nowhere else to put it. Especially if you use all your SAMs to shoot at ships and run out of ammo.
10. You want layered defenses as often as possible, combining missile types gives you multiple checks for interception, and a blob of DDs will intercept for their neighbors often enough

[pratapon51]

Apr 23, 2024 11:07:36 GMT -6 khorne8 said:

1.) I'm experimenting with the BC(G) vs. CA(G) question. However, I've found that I usually overmatch the enemy missile capability. So I 'outgun' enemy cruisers with CA(G)s very well, by wrecking them with HSAMs. The CA(G) main guns only rarely do anything more than clean up. So, I find it hard to justify the BC(G) cost premium. Do you have a good design to share?

2.) Are SAMs ineffective against bombing? Enough automatic 3" DP barrels to put up decent HAA numbers eats up about as much weight and topweight as another SAM launcher. To put it another way, which is better: one HSAM + automatic 3" secbat, or two HSAM? I'm strongly biased towards more HSAM because they slap surface targets so hard.

3.) For what it's worth, I went looking for an answer to this one before posting, and I found wildly contradictory answers. I've seen devs and/or code-knowers posting here, so if such a person could offer a definitive answer, I'd appreciate it.

10.) I don't see why you'd put LSAMs on a DD. It seems to me that late game DDs are best designed high/low: either 3800 ton MSAM hammers, or cheap and expendable 1800 ton SSM carriers, which are excellent meat shields. The former doesn't need LSAM once MSAMs get antimissile capability, and adding an LSAM to the latter bloats its cost unacceptably.

1.) Looks like I'm somewhat corrected on that one, this 35 kiloton example I tried building out costs quite a lot more as one expects than a CAG, and my game is a bit less than vanilla! But the idea is, in case the enemy still has large CVs or operational CAs present, you will handily outgun them at battle ranges, with a 9" belt reliably stopping 10" shells at any range over 10kyd. Due to the current state of missile penetration, it'll stop most missile pens, too. At around at most 2x the cost of a competitive CA, it will eat more than its cost of the same type of ships for breakfast. If you're willing to go somewhat bigger then 17" guns are superior and will frequently sink a CL or CA in fewer than 10, and sometimes fewer than 5, good hits.

(I've also been told that the AI is more likely to keep their BXs if the player keeps theirs, so that may be a factor in why my battle line has competition in the late era.)

2.) More SAMs are better, naturally, if you can afford cost and weight. However, I wouldn't worry too hard about the raw HAA factor because it's unclear how much each point matters, so a few auto 3" guns squeezed into the remaining tonnage of your ships will suffice by the time they're around.

10.) Yeah, equipping a 'low' DD with an LSAM does significantly increase cost, but IMO their consequent increased effectiveness as missile decoys is worth more than the money saving. With the improved tech advance they start providing limited protection to your other ships, too.

[director]

For a gun CA's main battery, are 10" guns or autoloaded 8" preferable, and why?
Is there any reason to retain a fully automatic 3" secondary battery, or will SAMs and radar directed MAA do?

Once aircraft come in, I build 9x8" all-forward CAs with floatplanes for search. Later, I take off the floatplanes and add SAMs. For a purpose-build missile cruiser I like to keep a turret or two of 6" to 8" autos. If an enemy gets past the aircraft and SSMs then 6" to 8" is enough to wreck a lightly-armored ship and wreck the funnels, superstructure, etc of anything armored. Plus I can build two CAs for the price of a BC.

I believe some amount of auto small guns are valuable, especially for close-in defense.

If there is no 3" secondary battery or DP main battery, I understand AA directors to be pointless. Is this correct?

I think AA directors work with the heavy and light AA - at least they should work with heavy AA. If the game doesn't do that, it should.

Autoloaded 6" guns on CLs seem very effective against DDs. How many guns per CL should be retained for cleanup after the missiles are expended?

Once I get autoloading 6" with DP capability, I go to an 8x6" in twin turret layout for CLs. If I need missiles then the aft two turrets go. Alternatively, a 5" DP auto twin mount works well - I'd use three of them for every two 6" mounts.

DP 6" main batteries are heavy and also need AA directors, so it seems preferable to discard DP capability once SAMs are available. Is this correct?

I do not. My build strategy is for DDs to be ASW-heavy, CLs to be AA-heavy and CAs to be all-around capable. I do insist on some SSMs on every ship if tonnage permits.

Is there any reason to use the missile cruisers tech, which allows unarmored CLs? It seems worthwhile to retain some armor against enemy 6" guns, and splinters.

That's a hard one. Given how hard shells, bombs and missiles can hit, anything above splinter-armor is probably wasted tonnage (unless you get up to 12" or more of armor, and even then the unarmored parts are vulnerable).

Are the lighter aluminum superstructures considered worth the additional fire risk on CLs?

How good is your damage control and how badly do you need the extra tonnage?

Is it worth accepting the penalty to topweight for multiple missile types, or can HSAMs work well enough as SSMs to allow dedicated SSMs to be discarded?

I prefer to specialize DDs for ASW, CLs for AA and CAs for all-around capability. So light SSM capability for DDs and CLs, heavy for CAs. Then too, do you need a heavy SSM for a DD?

Double SAM launchers appear to bring no additional ammunition. So multiple single launchers bring more missiles, for not much additional weight. Is this correct?

Not sure.

LSAMs seem terrible due to their restricted firing arcs, while MSAMs and HSAMs have 360° arcs. Is there some use case for them on cruisers that I'm not seeing?

More Dakka! Missile go BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! I'd pack them on if I had the tonnage to spare but not necessarily take something else off.

[khorne8]

Embarrassingly, I've only just noticed that it's now possible to edit missile reloads. How should this best be used? In my current campaign, I have been relying on HSAMs and MSAMs in surface attack mode as the fleet's main anti-surface weapon, because they provide sustained firepower. However, missile reloads provide an a couple of alternatives that I can think of.

• For large cruisers, I have been using multiple HSAM and MSAM launchers. In extreme cases, 2x2 HSAM, 2x2 MSAM. However, this is obviously ruinous in terms of topweight. By using maximum reloads however, nearly the same number of total missiles can be brought with only one double launcher. Is this a good idea? It sacrifices redundancy and rate of fire.
• Alternatively, it seems possible to rely on reloadable HSSM launchers as the main battery now. I have not done a comparative test of a similar tonnage of surface attack HSAM vs. reloadable HSSM, in terms of rate of fire, damage done, etc. Has anyone done so?

[attemptingsuccess]

HSSMs can fire over the horizon and you can generally carry a heavier first salvo. They might be good, especially on a carrier fleet that can fire on targets spotted by surface forces.
Carry more reloads if you are running out of missiles.
AA gun directors affect both DPAA and (R)MAA, bring them if you can spare the topweight.
LSAM can shoot down enemy SSMs starting at their introduction, they are good for point defense, bring them on large ships.
Aluminum structure is worth it
HSAM can not shoot down missiles, but can hit JA before they launch, MSAM is good on destroyers

[khorne8]

May 8, 2024 20:35:19 GMT -6 attemptingsuccess said:

HSSMs can fire over the horizon and you can generally carry a heavier first salvo. They might be good, especially on a carrier fleet that can fire on targets spotted by surface forces.
Carry more reloads if you are running out of missiles.
AA gun directors affect both DPAA and (R)MAA, bring them if you can spare the topweight.
LSAM can shoot down enemy SSMs starting at their introduction, they are good for point defense, bring them on large ships.
Aluminum structure is worth it
HSAM can not shoot down missiles, but can hit JA before they launch, MSAM is good on destroyers

I'm experimenting with the HSSM vs. HSAM question now. The addition of flexible reloads opens up all kinds of build flexibility, because it creates complex tradeoffs of weight vs. topweight. Especially because additional HSSM reloads do incur a topweight penalty, but presumably because HSAM magazines are below decks, they don't. This is awesome, thank you devs.

The thing is, I really don't like putting three different missile systems on one cruiser if it can possibly be avoided. It incurs nasty weight and topweight penalties. IMHO, cruisers really need missile defense, so one of those missile systems must be LSAM (or MSAM once they get antimissile capability). And I don't like cruisers with no significant antisurface missile capability; the player can't rely on the battle generator to keep them out of cruiser actions and such. So I think that leaves three choices for the offensive missile punch on a lategame cruiser:

• HSSM + HSAM, accepting the weight penalties for three missile systems.
• HSSM only, with reloads so that the HSSMs can provide sustainable firepower. But I hate the idea of a cruiser that does not provide a long range antiaircraft bubble.
• HSAM only, with huge magazines to provide sustained antisurface HSAM fires, accepting the lower alpha strike potential (or relying on HSSM carrying DDs to provide this).

My testing so far is pushing me towards the HSAM only option. It seems to me that DDs are the natural place for the fleet's HSSMs. Any ship with lots of HSSMs on it is going to naturally suffer somewhat in its antiair and missile defense, so it seems best to assign that role to an expendable platform.