|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 3, 2018 21:28:42 GMT -6
Actually, that's a different sort of failure: "Saltwater enters feed tanks" refers to the freshwater tanks used to supply the boilers being contaminated by seawater. This won't put out the boilers, it will just clog them with salt, sandblast the turbines with salt entrained in the steam, cause accelerated rusting in the steam circuit, etc.
Salt Lake City's problem was that saltwater got into her fuel supply and extinguished the boiler fires. While this more immediately stops the engines, and certainly won't be good for the boilers, it's going to be a lot easier to deal with in the long run: you can repair the fuel system damage that caused the contamination, pump the saltwater out, and be back in business. You might have to do some work on the boiler when you get back to port, but with feedwater contamination, you limp or get towed back to port, and then, depending on how long the boilers were boiling seawater, you might have to replace the whole steam circuit.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 3, 2018 18:05:22 GMT -6
With superfiring turrets and three centerline turrets, I've been known to do stuff like 3X2 AXY ships with an 8" secondary battery and 5" tertiaries. I forget if I've done similar ships ABL.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 3, 2018 17:58:37 GMT -6
I presume that most of the various types of damage events that can occur in combat in RTW are based on real events that happened to one or more ships. So this is just a thread to give real life examples of the various damage events that appear in RTW.
To start out with, Warspite had a "rudder jammed port/starboard" event at Jutland.
Anybody want to have a stab at, say, "Salt water enters feed tanks"?
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 3, 2018 1:32:27 GMT -6
For the short citadel weight bonus, you need B turret, and no non-forward turrets (so something like AB or ABL). For both of those, you need AB specifically. The short citadel configurations are specifically AB, ABL, and ABQ. For whatever reason, ABC does not qualify for the short citadel bonus, nor do BC, BL, BQ, 12B, BDE, BFG, or similar configurations (not that I see any real reason to want to do any of those, since AB is almost strictly superior to all of them even before factoring in the short citadel bonus). The only configuration that does not give the short citadel bonus that I really think should have it and see a point in using is A. 1x3 A *should* be lighter than 1x2 + 1x1 AB, but it isn't, because it doesn't get the short citadel bonus. This isn't something I'd use in capital ships, except maybe a predreadnought if I got triple turrets before B turret, but my mid-game cruiser force often includes a few 8000-ton-ish CAs with an all-forward main battery of three 8"-ish guns, and with triple turrets, it should make sense to put all of those in one turret, but it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 2, 2018 23:17:09 GMT -6
Bah, just because nobody ever tried you conclude it's impossible. :-P
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 2, 2018 23:06:32 GMT -6
Director, as far as just being able to use >12" of armor at <31 kt speed while retaining BC classification, you just need 7 or fewer guns in two or fewer turrets, so you could do AY. For the short citadel weight bonus, you need B turret, and no non-forward turrets (so something like AB or ABL). For both of those, you need AB specifically.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 2, 2018 15:02:16 GMT -6
Skwabie: I tend to follow a doctrine of seeking long-range engagements, so given the tendency of AI ships to be belt-heavy and deck-light, it should be obvious why I favor the AB design.
The dynamics of the AB vs ABVY matchup are interesting: both have the same deck, and the ABVY has a heavier broadside with a lighter belt, so it will tend to do better at plunging fire ranges than at direct fire ranges. However, the AB can close the range quickly without taking any of its guns out of arc, and while the ABVY matches the AB for speed and can keep the range open, to do so it has to mask half its broadside, at which point its lighter belt and smaller caliber leave it with no advantages (in gun count, gun caliber, or armor) over the AB.
The ABVY will probably do better in a full fleet engagement, where torpedo forces can be used to keep the range open, but mauling enemy destroyers is one of the reasons I like to have a 24x6 secondary battery.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 2, 2018 0:15:31 GMT -6
There's no need to regress to 2 turret layout gen 0 BC equivalents just to have some belt more than 12", pretty soon armor's not gonna matter. 1920 onwards AI BCs are well designed lethal glass cannons and only way to beat them is using better glass cannons. Make it 31kts to be able to catch everything or run away if outnumbered. As much armor on the turrets to preserve firepower. 12 16" or 10 17" tubes in 4 turrets. As for belt, 10" or even 9" is enough to fend off some engine room hits. But that is a few years off from 1916 yet. It's not just to have more than 12" of armor that I use 2x3 AB, and I'd hardly call 2x3 AB a Gen 0 layout either. The weight savings from the all-forward layout, and from limiting the ship to 6 guns, result in a significantly lower tonnage (and thus cost) than AI ships with the same speed, armor, and gun caliber, and with the same tonnage allows significantly more armor for the same speed and caliber, even discounting the 12" limit. My late-game battlecruisers are not glass cannons and tend to handily wipe the floor with AI battlecruisers.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 1, 2018 15:25:41 GMT -6
Why does only two turrets let you get away... never mind. No I hadn't considered that one. I actually don't have either Improved Triple Turrets or Quadruple Turrets researched in this particular game. Heck, I had to buy the original Triple Turret tech from the Japanese. In addition to making sure a design is classed as a BC,a <8 gun AB design (or an ABL design if you're willing to have it classed as a BB, or are before 1916) has the advantage of significant tonnage savings (because the belt doesn't have to be as long to cover the magazines and machinery with all the guns being at one end of the ship), so I tend to switch to 2x3 AB as soon as I have the B turret and triple turrets available, regardless of the reduced reliability before improved triple turrets.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Feb 26, 2018 23:28:52 GMT -6
I'll note that another explanation for DDs taking so many more losses than heavier ships is that they are more easily sunk by mines. How many mine *strikes*, resulting in either sinkings or repairable damage, are you getting per ship type?
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Feb 19, 2018 23:05:47 GMT -6
There were lots of rotary engines laying around, so someone got the bright idea to bolt one to a Ki-61, and presto, the IJA got the Ki-100, which was actually a really good plane. The Camel had a rotary engine, but the Ki-100 did not! (Nor did any fighter of the WWII era). The Ki-100 had a plain old radial engine. The rotary was a special type of radial engine mostly used in WWI-era aircraft, in which the crankshaft was bolted to the airframe instead of rotating freely, the propeller was attached to the engine casing instead of the crankshaft, and the *whole engine* rotated around the crankshaft to drive the propeller. The term "rotary engine" has also been used to describe Wankel type designs, but the Wankel wasn't invented until the jet age, and so hasn't really been used a lot on aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Feb 18, 2018 21:54:05 GMT -6
I rarely find battle damage to be a limiting factor in blockades unless I have no base capacity in the relevant sea zones and battle damaged ships are being interred.
|
|
|
Options
Feb 15, 2018 22:45:27 GMT -6
Post by rimbecano on Feb 15, 2018 22:45:27 GMT -6
Quite frankly, if I lose a battle, or a sufficiently large ship, on account of the AI's handling of the support force, I nuke the RTW process before ending the battle and start over from my last save.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Feb 10, 2018 19:43:48 GMT -6
How do you detach a ship from a battlegroup? Sometimes after a ship takes a lot of damage and has reduced speed it doesn't detach. I've had the AI group my 22 knot BB with 18 knot Bs. So I'd like to be able to detach ships. For battle damage, you can detach as described by Aeson. For the grouping at the beginning of the scenario, about all you can try to do is set the division speed to max and wait for the fast ships to run far enough ahead of the slow ones that it gives you the detach or slow down division dialogue.
|
|
|
Text
Feb 8, 2018 23:20:07 GMT -6
Post by rimbecano on Feb 8, 2018 23:20:07 GMT -6
You learn to adapt, put them on, get used to them and move on. I've had glasses for a quarter of a century and it doesn't make any difference other than I can see better and its safer. Enjoy each day. I've had mine for the same timeframe, but a quarter century ago I was in kindergarten. I barely remember life without them.
|
|