|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 11, 2016 19:20:31 GMT -6
So the current game I am playing as Germany, I have noticed that the AI has universally chosen designs with very poor armor. For example a battle I just fought against the Russians their BC's have 7" belt and 6 1/2" turret going 30kts, but their BB's have 10" belt and 8" turret going 25kts (ish varies between classes 22-26kts). All the AI are building designs like this and it is 1923, but these designs have been appearing since the second British BB class which went 24kts with 9" belt and 8" turrets. The net result has been lots of turret flash fires for them, but what I was wondering was if this is a result of the algorithms choosing based on the Brits designs, or something else. I am playing on varied tech with 40% research and the variant where 2 and 3 gun turrets aren't as effective.
I was just wondering if anyone had an insights into this, Thanks.
Oh and the battle I fough? Yah the Russians lost 4 BC of that Izmail class, all to turret flash fire at a mix of close and long range. In fact the first salvo from one of my BC's landed a hit at 20,000 ft and caused a flash fire.
|
|
|
Post by fightingflattops on Nov 11, 2016 20:36:02 GMT -6
To me it looks like the AI try to outnumber you, giving up quality. In the last battle the enemy had 4 flash fires out of 6 sank ship, Russia. If they can't compete on all, the AI try on number of ships, on weight, on gun size, on speed, and lastly on armour.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 12, 2016 0:57:57 GMT -6
To me it looks like the AI try to outnumber you, giving up quality. In the last battle the enemy had 4 flash fires out of 6 sank ship, Russia. If they can't compete on all, the AI try on number of ships, on weight, on gun size, on speed, and lastly on armour. Maybe, but I was the last to enter the BB race, what it appears to me is that this was prompted by the British second class. In fact Russia had completed their first poorly armored Poltova class BBs before I had even gotten my first BB or BC laid down. I just find it interesting that maybe the Brits selected a fast BB design due to tech progression and everybody copied them. Ironically enough I am now seeing the AI copy me as I just finished a class of 41,000 ton BBs with 22kt speed and 18" armor, and my spy's are indicating that at least the Russians and Italians have started doing the same thing design wise. The French are as usual in their own corner being weird design wise, just finished at 26kt BC with 11" main guns in 3 centerline double turrets and 4 single wing turrets.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 12, 2016 10:53:43 GMT -6
Welp, I am beginning to wonder if everyone is building ships in British yards. Battle I just fought against the French 3 Tourville class BC up in smoke from a mix of turret flash fires and magazine penetration critical hits. I guess this is what one gets from 9" belt and turret armor
|
|
|
Post by HolyDragoon on Nov 13, 2016 9:08:53 GMT -6
Well, there's a point in the game where everything gets possessed by the Jutland ghost once the enemy gets close enough/far enough.
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Nov 13, 2016 9:42:02 GMT -6
As some might say, "speed is the best armour" At least they're not going all the way to Courageous-level armor...
|
|
|
Post by director on Nov 13, 2016 12:04:48 GMT -6
Thinner armor was a 'thing' for a while, and since the trend-setter was Britain, other navies paid attention and followed suit.
Check out the British pre-dreadnoughts - armor is definitely sacrificed for gunpower, speed and seakeeping, if you use the old 'one inch of armor for each inch of the main gun caliber' argument. The 'light' battleships Triumph and Swiftsure (built for another country but purchased for the Royal Navy) were very fast and light, and were particular favorites of Jackie Fisher. This trend followed in the dreadnoughts and reached its apogee in the thin-skinned battlecruisers. British ships also tended not to be intricately subdivided, since it was felt this hindered working the ship when at sea. German ships were intended to be in port unless steaming to battle, with the crew even sleeping ashore, and could be easily subdivided.
Italy went through various stages of emphasizing speed at the expense of armor and, in some case, guns. Russian designs (especially once Italy began providing assistance) were lightly armored; some of their supposed dreadnoughts were really just slow battlecruisers.
Britain's explosive problem has been variously attributed to thin armor, their habit of stockpiling powder in the turret to speed up the rate of fire, poor flash-doors (or doors and curtains propped open to speed up rate-of-fire) and the chemical composition of their cordite that caused it to explode rather than burn. They are all true, so you can take your pick or mix-and-match. It is true that Jellicoe and Beatty covered up reports that the Jutland flash-fires were caused by powder improperly stockpiled in the barbettes and turrets, and flash-protection in the capital ships was strengthened (and people were made to keep the existing doors and curtains closed). The top commanders of the fleet took steps to make sure these practices stopped, so they at least believed those were principle causes.
The German flash-fires at Dogger Bank gutted turrets but did not blow up their ships, so that seems to indicate their was some fundamental British problem outside armor thickness.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 13, 2016 14:52:43 GMT -6
Very neat fact list. Stuff like the above is primarily why I love this forum. Currently I am at war with GB, and it seems to be going well with 3 BB sunk for a CL, their poor armor is really hurting them as usual. One of those BBs was sunk by a 10" shell from the secondary battery on the first BB I built
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Nov 14, 2016 3:39:22 GMT -6
I got the impression that the AI builds these tin-can ships if the human player is not the first one building BCs or dreadnoughts. If I am the first the AI often tries to copy my ships. That leads to more armoured ships for the AI
|
|