How do YOU Armor?

[marcussmythe]

DD's cant be, of course.
CLs get either the minimum (narrow, 1" belt) for raiders, or 2" or so on most places (for 'battle' CLs)
BCs, though... especially late BCs...
I used to turn the speed dial up to 30 or 31, and run at most 4" of deck armor.  But that gave me a BC group that, while it could turn the line, seemed to go up like matchsticks once the 15-16" era and advanced fire control got started, and which 'wasted' most of their speed when serving in the line with the BBs.

I considered slower, up-armored BCs.. but I'm limited to 12" belt on my 26 knot BCs.  So that scared me off at first.

Last game, Chin China... my 'last' battle-line (40K+ ships with 9x15" or better).. I fielded both BCs and BBs.. same speed range (26-27), only difference is the BBs had more belt armor, the BCs were a bit smaller, both carried 6" decks and turret tops.

I could not for the life of me see a difference in battle results.  For the record, I tend to hold the range open out near the edge of gunner range (Adv. Director, Gunnery Training) in that era... the 6" decks were worth it (no explosions, few turrets KOed), but I could not for the life of me see a difference cased by the difference in belt armor.

Maybe next game JUST build thick-decked long gunnery 'BC' classification ships (In universe BBFs, but call em BCs in game for mission availablility) and ignore BBs?  Is 6" deck too much?  Would even more be meaningfully better?

[joebob73]

You never need much more than 4.5" deck, even if you go to 1950. Only max upgraded 18" guns can go through that much.

[kamuka]

Almost all of my CLs are 2" deck, belt, turret (top) and 4" or so CT. Sometimes lighter when purely for raiding or slightly heavier (3" belt and turrets) in very late game.

I very rarely build washington treaty style heavy cruisers or british style paper armour BCs, so my CAs and BCs follow the same rules as my BBs, which are gun calibre = belt = turret -1" = CT -2", deck to withstand everything but the largest guns expected to be encountered at max range and turret top to withstand everything. I might deviate a bit when I have very light or heavy guns compared to the other nations and very early ships are amoured lighter, as the early projectiles are so weak.

[marcussmythe]

Jul 7, 2016 9:46:24 GMT -6 joebob73 said:

You never need much more than 4.5" deck, even if you go to 1950. Only max upgraded 18" guns can go through that much.

Whats your degree of confidence on this?  Ive seen my 4" decked ships torn apart by gunfire that my 6" decked ships shrugged off.  Turret tops are similar?

I know the designers have indicated that armor is not a binary, with absolute immunity if your armor thickness is greater than the opponents penetration and absolute vulnerability if you are below it, but I cannot claim any real understanding of the damage and armor-penetration model inside the game.

[ranger9000]

Personally I very rarely get my deck armour over 4" myself as I have found very little need for that much weight and armour. Though my usual strategy is generally to get in close with enemies since I normally play nations with a gun deficiency (A-H and CSA) and beat on them while letting my 12-15" belts and 9-11" turret fronts (as early as 1902) shrug off anything they can throw at me.

[klavohunter]

Because the maximum range in combat is unnaturally restricted to 20,000 yards, I prioritize turret face armor, followed by belt armor, even in the later years where I grudgingly add deck armor. Turret Top armor is something I invest in, since it's fairly cheap and keeps your ship's main guns firing as long as possible (IMO, a warship's main job!). So, with heavy belt and turret armor on my BBs/BCs, I try to close to medium range and unleash hell. Skirting 20,000 yards and trying to drop shells on the deck seems difficult against the AI's excellent micro.

[admiral]

My armor patterns for capital ships typically go like this, with relative eras divided by the battery caliber.

Pre-dreadnought era (10-12 inch gun): most fights take place at very short range, so I go without deck armor most of the time due to the simple non existence of plunging fire. Armor penetration is extremely poor: even 12" guns have single-digit penetration values unless you get SUPER close. Because of poor armor penetration, you can usually leave main belt armor at 10" and use extra weight for deck extended.

Semi-dreadnought era (8-10 inch secondaries, 10-13 inch main guns): While still restricted to two centerline turrets, ships have become far more powerful. Accuracy, rates of fire, and armor penetration have all increased, as well as the quality and/or size of both main battery guns and secondary guns. Because of all this, battle ranges increase, but not to the point where plunging fire (and hence deck armor) is a serious concern. However, by this point I consider belt extended armor to just be insurance against secondary batteries, since it's now becoming difficult to effectively protect every part of the ship against main caliber fire.

Dreadnaught era (12-14 inch guns): Belt extended armor is now officially useless in capital ship engagements, whatever arguable merit it has in the semi-dreadnought era. Further technological improvements increase battle ranges increase to the point where secondary armaments stop being a factor in capital ship engagements, and to where plunging fire is now a serious concern. 2-3" in deck armor is adequate to handle this, but keep in mind that belt armor is still more important.

Super-dreadnought era (15-18 inch guns): Battles ranges are now miles upon miles long, and reach the point where direct fire has been replaced by plunging fire as your primary threat. 4-6" deck armor is recommended, and use leftover tonnage for your belt. All or nothing armor is pretty standard at this point as well.

Also, here are two general rules of thumb:
1. A ship's armor should be able to resist its own gunfire.
2. Always keep your turret armor as thick, if not more so, than your belt armor.

Lastly, I've heard you need deck armor to have the bonus a "sloping armored deck" layout gives you. Sure, one could say that the deck armor is exactly what makes this layout beneficial, but to me it seems that "deck armor" refers to the top, non-sloping deck, not the sloping deck deep near the waterline. My reasoning is that you get extra weight for a sloping deck arrangement, so I've always assumed that the extra weight went to a special sloping deck that was separate from regular deck armor.

[bcoopactual]

Jul 7, 2016 18:25:25 GMT -6 admiral said:

Lastly, I've heard you need deck armor to have the bonus a "sloping armored deck" layout gives you. Sure, one could say that the deck armor is exactly what makes this layout beneficial, but to me it seems that "deck armor" refers to the top, non-sloping deck, not the sloping deck deep near the waterline. My reasoning is that you get extra weight for a sloping deck arrangement, so I've always assumed that the extra weight went to a special sloping deck that was separate from regular deck armor.

I believe that in the sloping deck armor scheme, the deck armor value includes the sloping part of the deck as well not just the flat part.  I have however, seen Fredrik or one of the other developers confirm that in the protected cruiser armor scheme, the deck armor value represents the flat part and the belt armor value the sloping part separately.

[admiral]

Also, this isn't about armor, necessarily, but still about protection. Coal bunkers protect you from damage, and the game will tell you when a blast has been limited by a coal bunker. I've also heard that secondaries in casemates help reduce damage by making secondary hits out of what otherwise would have been hull hits.

And of course, sloping decks gives you a bonus as well.

[chz]

I did wonder about protected cruisers. Certainly most real-world examples have 0" belts and up to 2.5" of "deck" armour.

[marcussmythe]

Agreed, Admiral. Though the protective qualities of things like Coal Bunkers and Casement Secondaries are really more effects of an era than design choices, as I see it.

Once Oil burning engines are possible, are the protective benefits of coal bunkers worth the increased weight and operational disadvantages of coal fueling? If you put the saved weight purely into armor, are you better protected? Might coal still be a viable design choice for slow ships (who, investing less weight in powerplant, gain less from the switch to oil)? It seems to me that whatever the defensive advantages of coal, I would choose oil, even in the absence of weight savings - oil burning engines maintain speed so much better in engagements, a tactical advantage that I am loathe to give up.

As for casements vs. turrets - It had been my understanding that large casements were subject to detonation. Are the protective advantages of decreasing hull hits worth the explosion risk? My thought would be no, but I am uncertain. For smaller (6" or less, I tend to go 5") secondaries, turrets seem a given if possible, if only for weight savings and improved arcs of fire - but is there an argument for heavily armored 5" secondary casements as a defensive measure, or would you be better served again to simply turret mount them and put the saved weight into armor?

Does the advance of time render this moot, when no reasonable amount of armor will save a secondary mount from a plunging 16" +1 shell with end game AP technology, and the increased combat range causes most hits to land on the deck, rather than the belt?

[admiral]

Jul 8, 2016 9:09:46 GMT -6 marcussmythe said:

Agreed, Admiral. Though the protective qualities of things like Coal Bunkers and Casement Secondaries are really more effects of an era than design choices, as I see it.

Once Oil burning engines are possible, are the protective benefits of coal bunkers worth the increased weight and operational disadvantages of coal fueling? If you put the saved weight purely into armor, are you better protected? Might coal still be a viable design choice for slow ships (who, investing less weight in powerplant, gain less from the switch to oil)? It seems to me that whatever the defensive advantages of coal, I would choose oil, even in the absence of weight savings - oil burning engines maintain speed so much better in engagements, a tactical advantage that I am loathe to give up.

As for casements vs. turrets - It had been my understanding that large casements were subject to detonation. Are the protective advantages of decreasing hull hits worth the explosion risk? My thought would be no, but I am uncertain. For smaller (6" or less, I tend to go 5") secondaries, turrets seem a given if possible, if only for weight savings and improved arcs of fire - but is there an argument for heavily armored 5" secondary casements as a defensive measure, or would you be better served again to simply turret mount them and put the saved weight into armor?

Does the advance of time render this moot, when no reasonable amount of armor will save a secondary mount from a plunging 16" +1 shell with end game AP technology, and the increased combat range causes most hits to land on the deck, rather than the belt?

Basically your first paragraph nails it. They're really more just coincidental bonuses you get from having no better options than a genuine design choice. 

Oil il is definitely better than coal. Maintaining speed is an important advantage, and as you point out you can use the saved weight for more armor.

As for casemates, I saw in another thread (I think it was "Ai designed ships" or something) where people were discussing absurdly oversized secondary batteries (both in terms of gun caliber and the number of guns). One person suggested placing restrictions on this, but then the designers commented that a player should still be able to build them, just that they should face consequences. They said that there is no current risk of flash fires in secondary turrets, but it would be a good idea. That way, designers who have obnoxious secondary batteries would have to choose between a massively increased flash fire risk or use a ton of weight to armor them all effectively. 

As for time making it moot, yeah, pretty much. I give my late-game secondaries enough armor to avoid splinter damage and that's basically it. Maybe if we get secondary flash fires in future updates I'll change.

[marcussmythe]

If we get secondary flash fires, I hope they scale the damage to that appropriate to the size of the mount, etc. A 5" mount flashing might blow itself off the side of the ship, but its not going to open up the ship like a fire-flower the way a main turret magazine did Beatty's Battlecruisers.

[admiral]

Jul 8, 2016 12:03:31 GMT -6 marcussmythe said:

If we get secondary flash fires, I hope they scale the damage to that appropriate to the size of the mount, etc. A 5" mount flashing might blow itself off the side of the ship, but its not going to open up the ship like a fire-flower the way a main turret magazine did Beatty's Battlecruisers.

I agree. Having a catastrophic flash fire because a 5-inch casemate got penetrated would seem unrealistic and stupid. Perhaps it could take out surrounding guns, or cause some Structure or Floatation damage, because there'd be a huge hole where the casemate once was. 

[thatzenoguy]

Wait...No secondary flash fires?...

I SWEAR I have seen it occur...Maybe I'm misremembering...