Late-game CAs

[admiral]

In the early game, I've noticed that armored cruisers and pre-dreadnaughts are basically the same. Of course the tonnage limit on CAs means this distinction inevitably disappears as battleships soar in tonnage, but for the first three or four years there really is no difference. Yet, in the late game, I find them basically useless, and don't use any of them.

They're too slow to catch light cruisers and destroyers (or be effective scouts like the former) and too weak to take on battleships and battlecruisers. Additionally, they are simply too expensive to mass-produce, making them a rough alternative to light cruisers for raiding and ASW duties.

Towards the end of the game (1920s-ish), I noticed something in the Almanac: virtually no nation was fielding armored cruisers, and those that were only had one or two. I myself was one of the nations who had none, but I still thought this was weird. Has anyone else noticed this in their opponents, or stopped building CAs themselves? What's the use for CAs in the late game?

The only thing I can think of is as a "heavy raider" that can fight back against ships that catch it, but then again my doctrine for interception battles is to just run like heck, because it's better for raiders to live on and continue to sink merchant ships than risk destruction just to destroy one enemy warship. Even if an intercepted raider wins a battle, it will be damaged to the point where it's taken out of commission for a few months anyway, effectively constituting a "mission kill" on behalf of the enemy. Then again, it takes faster to repair a ship than to build a new one, and it is quite tempting to be able to inflict attrition in small battles. With their superior armor and firepower compared to CLs, CAs seem the best ship for a "battle-raider: strategy as I'll coin it: raid enemy merchants, and sink any warships that disrupt the former, thus inflicting both economic and military attrition on the enemy.

[thatzenoguy]

CA's personally confuse me, for their tonnage, they are most costly than B's.

As I understand it, early game they are good for getting some nice HE rounds onto enemy B's, and if you sacrifice armour on them, they are basically proto-BC's.

[bcoopactual]

Historically, the armored cruiser evolved into the battlecruiser so I believe most nations stop building ACR's when they start fielding BC's. Similar to how they stop building B's once they develop dreadnought style BB's.

[zardoz]

Yes, the CA is later replaced by BCs, this is also my impression.

I am wondering whether they can replace CLs in the later play as fleet cruiser with a recon task. Later, the CLs seem to be very vulnerable and get heavy hits if they find a BC or BB. A CA could withstand heavier fire and would not be considerable slower (but of course more expensive)

The question is whether one want to build CAs for this task or simply use BCs. Since the set-up of a battle by the AI cannot be influenced one has to remove the CL if they should not be taken by the AI

[bcoopactual]

Something I've wondered, is there a transition point in game technology wise where you go from the obsolete armored cruiser type CA to the HMS Hawkins style CA's that led to what we think of today as heavy cruisers?

For comparison, the light cruiser armor tech lets you transition from old-style protected cruiser type CL designs to modern light cruisers. Is there a similar break from ACR's to heavy cruisers or is the CA design in game always obsolete once you have battlecruisers?

[tbr]

Very late game, after the "12inch belt step", when BCs need either 12inch or less B armor or more than 31kn speed to avoid BB classification, the BC is usually very vulnerable, to the point that it is not any more really viable within the range of BBs or earlier "heavy" BC's that would be classified BB under the new rules. A 12in B limited BC with 12in or heavier main guns is too much of an investment for its vulnerability and the tragetting focus the enemy will lay on it.

This is the time when the late heavy CA (with 9-12 10inch guns and 7in B, 15-18 kton displacement, 28kn speed) takes over the scout role. Costing about a third of a "heavy" BC and half of a "light" one but dangerous to both, especially in numbers, and absolutely lethal to anything else but a BB they become my late game scout staple, supporting any surviving modernized de facto fast BB but classified as BC (i.e. 28kn ~15-16inB/T,4D/TT AON with 12in to 14in main guns) in the scouting force and doing scouting for the main BB force.

[flyingtoaster]

Remember that historically CAs stopped being built when BCs came around, and people only started to build them again after the naval treaties. At that point countries built them not because they wanted to, but because they needed something and they were the best they were allowed to do.
So CAs not really existing in game after 1916 or so is pretty fair (I do sometimes see other nations build 'modern CAs' with 8x 8inch and 27+ speed).

[bcoopactual]

Jun 7, 2016 12:03:34 GMT -6 tbr said:

Very late game, after the "12inch belt step", when BCs need either 12inch or less B armor or more than 31kn speed to avoid BB classification, the BC is usually very vulnerable, to the point that it is not any more really viable within the range of BBs or earlier "heavy" BC's that would be classified BB under the new rules. A 12in B limited BC with 12in or heavier main guns is too much of an investment for its vulnerability and the tragetting focus the enemy will lay on it.

This is the time when the late heavy CA (with 9-12 10inch guns and 7in B, 15-18 kton displacement, 28kn speed) takes over the scout role. Costing about a third of a "heavy" BC and half of a "light" one but dangerous to both, especially in numbers, and absolutely lethal to anything else but a BB they become my late game scout staple, supporting any surviving modernized de facto fast BB but classified as BC (i.e. 28kn ~15-16inB/T,4D/TT AON with 12in to 14in main guns) in the scouting force and doing scouting for the main BB force.

I quite building CA's after I started building BC's and I never went back because I didn't think the game had a transition from ACR to heavy cruiser.  Maybe it's not just one tech but the combination of all the late game techs.  Thank you for the information.

[klavohunter]

So, late-game Large Cruisers seem impractical due to the way they end up having most of the expense of a battlecruiser, and none of the strength. They're cool if you get an 18,000-ton, 10" gun treaty, but otherwise, no.

I have experimented with Very Small CAs, with something like 9x7" main guns for armament. I felt disappointed every time I tried these...


HMS Courageous-pattern "Large Light Cruisers" weigh in as Battlecruisers in RTW. I consider them an extraordinary risky design to build, but they have been fun, and effective in colonial postings. Be prepared to run from any real battlecruiser you encounter!

My other fun experience with late-game CAs was my Germany game I posted to the favorite ships thread, where I refit my 1899 CAs' 11" double turrets with 16" singles and let them tag along with the battle line for epic clashes with the Royal Navy.

[srndacful]

Jun 7, 2016 11:48:24 GMT -6 bcoopactual said:

Something I've wondered, is there a transition point in game technology wise where you go from the obsolete armored cruiser type CA to the HMS Hawkins style CA's that led to what we think of today as heavy cruisers?

For comparison, the light cruiser armor tech lets you transition from old-style protected cruiser type CL designs to modern light cruisers. Is there a similar break from ACR's to heavy cruisers or is the CA design in game always obsolete once you have battlecruisers?

IMHO, early and late game CA's are two totally different branches of the cruiser evolutionary tree:

Early CA's are essentially proto-battlecruisers: they are of similar size to Battleships, and are supposed to be fast & strong enough to catch & kick the $#!t out of any other cruiser afloat - and run away from any Battleship encountered, since they are weaker (but faster - theoretically) then they.

Late CA's are essentially upgraded Light Cruisers: they represent the next step of CL evolution (after Light Cruiser) which (for me) happens once you get superfiring B & X turrets, Improved Double (or Triple) Turrets & Torpedo protection of 2 and above.

Putting all that stuff (even with Torpedo protection halved) on a Light Cruiser along with a 32+kt engines, 3"B & 4"T & 2"D armor & 4x2 6" guns usually puts it's displacement over 8000 tonnes - which is game's top ceiling for CL. And so, a Heavy Cruiser is born.

That's my 0.02$ anyway.

Cheers!

[chz]

So long as you build them fast enough, late game heavy cruisers can be useful. But you do have to be careful with them, as the only way to make them an affordable option is to make them vulnerable to CL fire. The largest I've built were 8" boats with 2x3 and 2x2 turrets and a 32kt speed. A quasi-Pensacola class. So long as the enemy doesn't decide to focus on them, they can lay some some impressive support fire in the scout role.

You gotta be rich to even consider it, mind you.

[director]

Historically the progression was this:

Armored cruisers were replaced by battlecruisers. HMS Invincible was initially thought to carry an 'all big gun' battery of 8x9.2" guns, not 12", and SMS Blucher (built to counter Invincible) carried 12x8". BCs were initially seen by most as a cruiser-killer but Fisher thought that with their high speed and long range they could replace battleships (like a boxer with superior footwork and longer reach). He did not foresee that the advantage of high speed would be lost when other navies started building them. No-one really predicted just how vulnerable big, thin-skinned ships could be to just a few shell-hits in the right (or wrong) places.

Battlecruisers got bigger and bigger in the pre-WW1 phase as designers tried for higher speeds, bigger guns and better armor. Then Jutland happened and several were lost (the exact causes are still debated but lie in their thinner armor and the British habit of piling up shells and propellant in the turrets and shell rooms for faster rate of fire). SMS Lutzow showed that a fast, capable ship could still have good staying power, but this flavor of battlecruiser was not adopted by other navies.

Battlecruisers post-WWI were replaced by fast battleships, the descendants of HMS Queen Elizabeth culminating in the American Iowas. The QEs showed you could have heavy hitting power, superior protection and reasonably high speed (25 knots compared to a BCs 27-28) at the cost of oil propulsion and high displacement.


I tend to build a few CAs with a uniform battery of 8" or 9" guns once dreadnoughts appear (and have had good luck with starting the game with CAs armed with 8-10 7" guns). They make nice light-cruiser and raider killers, and their 10-15k displacement makes them good 'anchors' for my colonial forces. And in the later stages (especially post-1925) I build a number of 8x8" or 9x8" for the same purpose. The enemy may deploy a BB or BC overseas but my CAs and CLs project enough force to keep my colonies free from invasion.

The last game I played as the US I fielded classes of 8x8" and 9x8" CAs and complemented them with a number of CLs with 8x6" and then 12x6" and 15x6". Then I built a compromise class with 15x7" guns. Never got to employ them in battle but I expect my 'floating machine-guns' would have done well.

[thatzenoguy]

Strictly speaking, AC's never got antiquated...They were being made even up to the age of ships like the Iowa...Alaska comes to mind.

[director]

Um... that's debatable (and debated even today). I'd consider the Alaskas to be exponents of the British battlecruiser thesis - fast, heavily-armed cruiser-killers with little armor. My definition of a modern CA is the Deustschland pocket-battleship... but except for the Alaskas being much bigger and better armed, they aren't that different.

Not saying you're wrong, just that my dividing line puts Alaska as the last BC and Deutschland as the last of the pre-WW1[type armored cruiser.

[thatzenoguy]

Jun 8, 2016 8:37:59 GMT -6 director said:

Um... that's debatable (and debated even today). I'd consider the Alaskas to be exponents of the British battlecruiser thesis - fast, heavily-armed cruiser-killers with little armor. My definition of a modern CA is the Deustschland pocket-battleship... but except for the Alaskas being much bigger and better armed, they aren't that different.

Not saying you're wrong, just that my dividing line puts Alaska as the last BC and Deutschland as the last of the pre-WW1[type armored cruiser.

Honestly, yeah, the Alaska were basically BC's, although small ones...

Strictly speaking a traditional BC is merely a battleship with AC, or less, armour, using its tonnage for speed and weapons.