|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 29, 2016 7:19:05 GMT -6
Hey all, I've been experimenting with this concept on early 6 gun BBs and BCs, was wondering what the community thought?
I have had some success using the concept as Russia to the point where in a recent game I kept the secondarys at 12*10" for the entire game. Of course this is the tech deficit nation of Russia, and the concept was mostly to compensate for my lack of wing or more than 3 centerline tech.
|
|
|
Post by rockmedic109 on Nov 29, 2016 8:47:50 GMT -6
I put 8 11" single turrets on my pre-dreadnought build. I suppose they can go boom if unlucky or unarmored. Once I can get four centerline turrets, I stop the practice. Too much weight and too much risk. Such a ship should be handled as a knife-fighter or you will not get many or any hits from the heavy secondaries {no director}.
Also, the secondaries may choose a different target than the main guns diluting your firepower. And I think there is a minor loss of accuracy when heavy secondaries and main guns are firing at the same target {not sure about this}.
|
|
|
Post by director on Nov 29, 2016 8:49:22 GMT -6
I've done that before - 6x12" and 12x10" - but only as a stopgap until I could use more than 3 centerline turrets.
These hybrids do OK, especially if you can fit the secondary armament with fire control. But a good dreadnought is still better.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 29, 2016 8:54:13 GMT -6
I concur with the above- heavy secondary may be the "best answer" at some point, but if you're playing with lower tech (40% in my games, which I find still allows DNs to be begun by '06/07, and "proper" DN's to be built by the teens) Secondary Director can be a fanciful dream of the late 20's, and that's a lot of time to be carrying around all that tonnage dedicated to the poor chance of success with Local control.
|
|
|
Post by director on Nov 29, 2016 9:17:54 GMT -6
Getting secondary director tech is one reason I keep my semi-dreadnoughts around - they're more useful than no dreadnought at all.
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Nov 29, 2016 10:48:20 GMT -6
I've usually had a good go with these both early and late in the game, but as others have mentioned - there is that long mid-game where the intermediate battery is at a disadvantage because it has no director. Basically between the time normal battle ranges start increasing beyond 10k and the time you get a secondary director, they're less than optimal. Before that, they can be a very useful edge in closer-range battles, especially if you give generous secondary armor. After that, arguably you're still better off putting on more primary weapons anyway, so unless you're still not able to for some reason, I'd go with that. One major disadvantage will always be that even if you save weight per mount/barrel of large secondary battery, you can always set up primaries, even wing turrets, with far better arcs of fire.
Of course there's always variable tech, too - so I'd not rule out heavy secondaries at any point in the game, but they're never really my first go-to solution.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 29, 2016 10:50:49 GMT -6
I didn't get the tech for good BBs till around 11-12ish, so I just kept running that design on my BCs. I was running a 30% Russia game emphasis on light forces a la directors strategy.
So great CLs and DDs, but **** BB and BC design.
Next game I am gonna try a heavy secondary on big ships for the lols
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Nov 29, 2016 10:59:45 GMT -6
Also I should mention that I've had some very successful large CAs/small BCs with something like 4x10" + 8x8", or even 4x12" + 8x10". They're a lot of fun, but arguably not very economical - their only real purpose is as killers of lesser CAs. But since they're fast and meant to be used aggressively anyway, their battles against smaller CAs usually follow the sequence of: wound enemy with primary caliber; close to moderate range where the intermediate battery is accurate but the enemy can't fight back effectively with their smaller secondary guns (usually 6"); disable them and finish off without getting too close. It's all good fun until you bump into a faster, "true" BC and that'll be the end of that
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Nov 29, 2016 12:14:43 GMT -6
Also I should mention that I've had some very successful large CAs/small BCs with something like 4x10" + 8x8", or even 4x12" + 8x10". They're a lot of fun, but arguably not very economical - their only real purpose is as killers of lesser CAs. But since they're fast and meant to be used aggressively anyway, their battles against smaller CAs usually follow the sequence of: wound enemy with primary caliber; close to moderate range where the intermediate battery is accurate but the enemy can't fight back effectively with their smaller secondary guns (usually 6"); disable them and finish off without getting too close. It's all good fun until you bump into a faster, "true" BC and that'll be the end of that Weirdly two of my heavy secondary BCs absolutely took apart a pair of French heavyweight BCs I think combined tonnage was 44k vs 65k in favor of the French.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Nov 29, 2016 12:43:30 GMT -6
until i get 3 centerline turrets i go with heavy secondaries just because early game hit% is pretty low and it really helps to maximize the iron hail pelting the enemy
|
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by krawa on Nov 29, 2016 13:30:26 GMT -6
until i get 3 centerline turrets i go with heavy secondaries just because early game hit% is pretty low and it really helps to maximize the iron hail pelting the enemy No offense, but I don't really get the intentions behind this design, especially why you put 3' D and 5'T on it?? I mean that will give you reasonable protection against up to 14' guns ~1915, but I fail to see how 8'B and 9'T are supposed to make a difference in that case?
Am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Nov 29, 2016 13:58:22 GMT -6
until i get 3 centerline turrets i go with heavy secondaries just because early game hit% is pretty low and it really helps to maximize the iron hail pelting the enemy No offense, but I don't really get the intentions behind this design, especially why you put 3' D and 5'T on it?? I mean that will give you reasonable protection against up to 14' guns ~1915, but I fail to see how 8'B and 9'T are supposed to make a difference in that case?
Am I missing something?
You're not missing anything, but you may be thinking a little too far ahead - to me this looks like a very early-game ship and a good one for service in the first decade, with prospects of being repurposed as a very fast cruiser later on. In a world of mostly pre-dreads, it'll dish out - and it'll hold against early dreadnought as well. The compromise is obvious and limits its usefulness later on, but you always have to compromise somehow - and I think designing a ship in 1903 for the battles of 1915 is not gonna produce much of anything good for a reasonable price. Better to build for tomorrow's battles rather than next week's
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Nov 29, 2016 16:18:40 GMT -6
until i get 3 centerline turrets i go with heavy secondaries just because early game hit% is pretty low and it really helps to maximize the iron hail pelting the enemy No offense, but I don't really get the intentions behind this design, especially why you put 3' D and 5'T on it?? I mean that will give you reasonable protection against up to 14' guns ~1915, but I fail to see how 8'B and 9'T are supposed to make a difference in that case?
Am I missing something?
while my dock size is increasing i never build more than 1 or 2 of any BC class since i want the latest tech and heaviest armour at any given time - i don't mind paying the full development cost every time i lay down a new BC this is the first BC i build in game, about 1903-ish when i get level 2 ship design. since ships are making pretty big tech jumps from design to design for the first 15 years, i retire my early ships pretty quick - this guy might last to 1910, maybe a little longer if i'm not doing as well. i'd rather free up the maintenance cost to build a brand new ship i NEVER EVER get turret explosions, even though i'v always played with reduced flash fires unchecked - my ships only sink when they get pounded into the ocean with steel or get hit by torps
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 30, 2016 17:25:40 GMT -6
Getting secondary director tech is one reason I keep my semi-dreadnoughts around - they're more useful than no dreadnought at all. Isn't that a long time to keep them around considering how much faster it is to get 8 or 9 main guns then it is to get secondary director? i NEVER EVER get turret explosions, even though i'v always played with reduced flash fires unchecked - my ships only sink when they get pounded into the ocean with steel or get hit by torps All hail the chosen one of RNGesus
|
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by krawa on Nov 30, 2016 17:45:00 GMT -6
No offense, but I don't really get the intentions behind this design, especially why you put 3' D and 5'T on it?? I mean that will give you reasonable protection against up to 14' guns ~1915, but I fail to see how 8'B and 9'T are supposed to make a difference in that case?
Am I missing something?
while my dock size is increasing i never build more than 1 or 2 of any BC class since i want the latest tech and heaviest armour at any given time - i don't mind paying the full development cost every time i lay down a new BC this is the first BC i build in game, about 1903-ish when i get level 2 ship design. since ships are making pretty big tech jumps from design to design for the first 15 years, i retire my early ships pretty quick - this guy might last to 1910, maybe a little longer if i'm not doing as well. i'd rather free up the maintenance cost to build a brand new ship i NEVER EVER get turret explosions, even though i'v always played with reduced flash fires unchecked - my ships only sink when they get pounded into the ocean with steel or get hit by torps I assume you're not playing on historical budget (and have a turret flash fire trauma).
|
|