|
Post by theexecuter on Apr 10, 2017 20:43:24 GMT -6
Clark Family Builders 1900 B - 12,300 tons Short Range - Coastal Battleship Speed: 18 knots - meets spec. Armor: Sufficient to resist 12 inch fire Main Battery: 4x12 inch guns - 1000 shell magazine Casemate battery: 16x6 inch guns Cost: $1,422,000 per month - very affordable! 1900 CA: 13,600 tons Medium Range Speed: 24 knots Armor: Sufficient to resist 10 inch fire Outfitted for Colonial Service Main Battery: 4x10 inch guns - 1000 round magazine Casemate Battery: 16x6 inch guns Cost: $2,248,000 1900 CL - 7700 tons Medium Range Speed: 24 knots Armor: uniform 2" over citadel and guns. Remainder of ship protected by coal bunkers. Outfitted for colonial service Main Battery: 2x6 in - bow and stern chasers Casemate Battery: 10x6 in - more reliable and durable mounts for an impressive broadside. Magazine - 1020 rounds Cost - $1,549,000 1900 DD - 500 tons Short range - coastal protection Speed - 29 knots! Main Battery - 3x3 in guns - no rate of fire penalties Magazine - 750 rounds Torpedo launchers - 2x1 mounts - both mounts on centerline to double the potential torpedo broadside. No rate of fire penalties. Cost: $194,000
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Mar 7, 2017 21:41:49 GMT -6
Just popping in to say this is excellent and I'm checking daily for updates.
Keep it up!
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 22, 2017 18:22:02 GMT -6
I don't know about being for suckers. I'll use them if I have 6 inch secondaries because there is an accuracy penalty for guns larger than 5 inches trying to hit DD's. Once I go to 5 inch secondaries on my dreadnoughts though I do get rid of them. An accuracy penalty against DDs? Is that documented anywhere?
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 17, 2017 14:34:10 GMT -6
Were the forces independent of each other? If not, then the whole battle line was limited to 26 knots anyway by the mere presence of those ships in the line. Unless you guys are OK with your lead ships running away from the following ships in line... IMO, the concerning in game fault would be the lead ship being significantly older and slower...Not the following ships in the battleship divisions... Right? Two independent BC formations, with the old guys leading both Interesting. This doesn't happen to me, ever. Were the old ships better skilled? I'm wondering if the algorithm takes crew quality into account and doesn't let relatively green ships lead the line...
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 17, 2017 9:30:34 GMT -6
"However, I think you're wrong when you say that the game would deploy the QEs as Beatty did, in a single homogenous division. Instead, and this has been my point, the game would break up the 5th BS and mix it in with the BC divisions and you'd wind up with three BC divisions, all headed by a 25 knot "BC" and followed by 27-29 knot BCs. The extra horsepower in the BCs would all be wasted metal, especially as the slower "BCs" in the van are more likely to take damage and get slowed down even more." This. I just had this happen. 4 BCs deployed to battle, two new 28knt ones, 2 old 26 knt ones. The generator pairs each 28 with a 26 limiting all to 26 Were the forces independent of each other? If not, then the whole battle line was limited to 26 knots anyway by the mere presence of those ships in the line. Unless you guys are OK with your lead ships running away from the following ships in line... IMO, the concerning in game fault would be the lead ship being significantly older and slower...Not the following ships in the battleship divisions... Right?
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 16, 2017 21:52:28 GMT -6
I just made an approximation of the Lizzie in the ship designer in a savegame at 1912 (closest I have to the October 1912 date Lizzie was ladi down). 24 knot speed, 13 inch belt, 6 inch extended belt, 3 inch deck, 1 inch extended deck, 11 inch tower 13 inch turret face, 4 inch turret top, no secondaries, 4 turrets with 2 15 inch guns each. The game called it a dreadnought. I then tried thinning the Belt down to 6 inches and thinning the deck down to 1 inch. Still a dreadnought. I then tried increasing the speed to 25 knots and that made it a battlecruiser, even with the original armor configuration. So no, the game would not call a 24 knot battleship a battlecruiser. IMO, the fast battleship is the natural evolution of the battle cruiser...not the dreadnought. Although War College studies had earlier rejected the concept of a fast, light battlefleet, they were now supportive of the concept of a Fast Division of 25 knots (46 km/h) or more, operating in conjunction with a conventional heavy battleline, which could use its advantage in speed to envelop the head of the enemy line. Compared to Fisher's idea of speeding up the entire battlefleet, the advantages of this concept were that there would be no need to compromise the fighting power of the main fleet, and that it would be possible to retain the use of the existing (and still brand-new) 21-knot ships. Up to this time, it had been assumed that the role of a Fast Division could be fulfilled by the battlecruisers, of which there were at that time ten completed or on order. However, it was realised that there were now two problems with this assumption. The first was the likelihood that the battlecruisers would be fully committed in countering the growing and very capable German battlecruiser force. The second was that, as the then First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, put it, our beautiful "Cats" had thin skins compared to the enemy's strongest battleships. It is a rough game to pit ... seven or nine inches of armour against twelve or thirteen". In other words, the QEs were upgrades on the Lion class (or Tiger)...by increasing the roles the type could play in the fleet...not upgrades on the Iron Duke class (that would be the Revenge class). You can see the progression as follows: Invincible class (8x12 in, 6 in armor, 25 kn) Indefatigable class (8x12 in, 6 in armor, 25 kn) Lion class (8x13.5 in, 9 in armor, 28 kn) QE class (8x15 in, 13 in armor, 24 kn) Renown class (6x15 in, 6 in armor, 31.5 kn) Admiral class (8x15 in, 12 in armor, 31 kn) Aside from the Renown class (Fisher's insanity at work), the trend is towards increasing armor. No British dreadnought class approaches the speed of the QEs during this timeframe...indeed, any timeframe. The British moved to fast battleships as a cost savings with the Nelsons and Hood. And then KGV finishes the move to a one size fits all type (bigger is better).
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 16, 2017 21:35:34 GMT -6
In RTW, those QE ships would be BCs, and they would be deployed as Beatty did IRL.
As a counterpoint to your assertion that everyone came to battle with uniform class types...See German predreadnoughts as Jutland (why were they there?) and Blucher at Dogger Bank. See the US Navy's reluctance to consider fast battleships (either cruisers or battle line). There are numerous examples of non-homogeneous fleets in both world wars which buttress my point. You're right that the game would most likely label the QEs as battlecruisers. My memory is that 24 knots is enough to get that label near the start of the game. I know near the end that above 12 inches of belt armor pushes BCs into BB territory, but I don't think the QEs were quite that beefy. However, I think you're wrong when you say that the game would deploy the QEs as Beatty did, in a single homogenous division. Instead, and this has been my point, the game would break up the 5th BS and mix it in with the BC divisions and you'd wind up with three BC divisions, all headed by a 25 knot "BC" and followed by 27-29 knot BCs. The extra horsepower in the BCs would all be wasted metal, especially as the slower "BCs" in the van are more likely to take damage and get slowed down even more. I reiterate, the way the game sets up battle divisions is both ahistorical and stupid. I have discovered some of the strategies you employ in order to ameliorate the problems the game design creates -- uniform speed being the prime example here -- but these are workarounds, not necessarily all that historical. Of course there are plenty of valid reasons that the bulk of a battle line will conform to a fleet maximum speed -- both in real life history and in game, but I also think we should be able to build and employ ships of same type but different classes with different abilities and strengths/weaknesses, including speed. At present we can only do if we're willing to risk inefficient fleet makeup for battles. I can't think of any good reasons why the scenario creation system is so eager to mix different ship classes together. It's ahistorical and often frustrating. Hmm. And yet, the game never puts slower ships in the van for me. Must be that my newer ships of the same class are generally faster if they aren't the same speed. As for standardized battleships, they are very much historical. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard-type_battleshipI can think of many reasons why different ship classes are mixed together, all historical. Of course, for someone interested in complete control...I'm sure it's completely frustrating. I find the tendency of my captains to split my BBs into single units exceptionally frustrating as well (what do they think I built the BCs for?)...but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be done by a force commander trying desperately to apply power to a situation that is not ideal.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 16, 2017 12:40:24 GMT -6
Read what the various construction boards were considering for warship design in that area. Designing ships that could be more homogeneous with the current battle line strategy was an important item. Because they wanted to optimize around Tsushima style engagements, not because they didn't know how to do anything else. The Queen Elizabeth was commissioned in 1914 and was three knots faster then the battleline. At Jutland, the fifth battle squadron consisted of four Queen Elizabeth class battleships. They used their superior speed to chase the German battle line and force an engagement. In RTW, those QE ships would be BCs, and they would be deployed as Beatty did IRL. As a counterpoint to your assertion that everyone came to battle with uniform class types...See German predreadnoughts as Jutland (why were they there?) and Blucher at Dogger Bank. See the US Navy's reluctance to consider fast battleships (either cruisers or battle line). There are numerous examples of non-homogeneous fleets in both world wars which buttress my point.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Jan 16, 2017 10:18:04 GMT -6
The game does nicely model the fact that the head of the Navy doesn't determine fleet squadron composition. Jackie Fisher didn't determine which ship Jellicoe or Beatty used as flagships, nor did he determine which ships were used together. He merely determined which ships went to which commands. It is realistic, to an extent, that our designs are used in ways we didn't intend. That's real life. Your subordinates decide how to use the ships you build and provide. Better design your ships with your fleet leadership in mind... The game does a horrible job of composing fleets. PERIOD. Go look at TOE for either the Grand Fleet or High Seas Fleet at Jutland. Virtually every BB division (with the exception of the British "odd ducklings" like Agincourt or Canada, etc.) is composed homogenously. All the Iron Dukes are in the same division, ditto all the Posens. The way the game does things, with the biggest/best ships as lead ship for each division, is both ahistorical and stupid. I've never had issues with the AI composing my fleet catastrophically. Of course, I don't specialize designs beyond BB or BC, and progression is gradual within those categories. I also make sure I only increment classes at most every two years. I also adopt a standard BB speed, and don't build many BCs to keep the AI from using them in the battle line. Read what the various construction boards were considering for warship design in that area. Designing ships that could be more homogeneous with the current battle line strategy was an important item. I struggle to imagine a period where a ship five years younger than my lead class would be catastrophic if included in the line with my newest ship. I also scrap ships that are too old (or send them overseas). All because I know my admirals were selected for their political ability to leverage aristocratic background into a lucrative job. Their actual skill commanding a fleet is questionable. I therefore work to make it easy on them...AS I SHOULD DO as head of the Navy. Complaining that the game doesn't lend itself to min-max strategy is pointless, IMO. Real life wasn't as professional and competent as you portray it to be.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Dec 27, 2016 14:28:23 GMT -6
The game does nicely model the fact that the head of the Navy doesn't determine fleet squadron composition.
Jackie Fisher didn't determine which ship Jellicoe or Beatty used as flagships, nor did he determine which ships were used together.
He merely determined which ships went to which commands. It is realistic, to an extent, that our designs are used in ways we didn't intend. That's real life. Your subordinates decide how to use the ships you build and provide.
Better design your ships with your fleet leadership in mind...
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Dec 12, 2016 0:19:59 GMT -6
Our easy win against a pair of Russian armored cruisers is quickly dashed by a bit of revenge by the Russian navy. South of Sicily, two Russian armored cruisers engage the Vettor Pisani and San Marco (both Carlo Alberto cruisers) and an escort of three torpedo boats. The Italian cruisers give chase, and tell the torpedo boats to engage. The torpedo boats promptly run directly for the harbor at Syracuse. The Vettor Pisani takes a penetrating hit early and begins to flood, causing her to shear out of line and slow down. The San Marco draws the other cruisers away, but in a 2 on one battle, is eventually set on fire and sicks while vainly signalling for her cowardly torpedo boats to at least distract the Russian cruisers. The Vettor Pisani ends up beaching herself and is completely destroyed by the returning Russian cruisers. All three torpedo boats made harbor unscratched. I've never had ships behave in such a manner. Usually they might hang about out of range and not do anything...but to immediately disengage and run for harbor...quite irritating. Anyway, the cruiser war continues...with every instance of my ships intercepting Russian ships resulting in an Italian cruiser sinking. The war is going poorly. Italy has been turning down peace offers...should we accept one? A new light cruiser class is laid down to try to keep our cruiser numbers up. She sacrifices two six inch guns for an extra knot of speed. Perhaps this class can run from the enemy?
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Dec 12, 2016 0:12:23 GMT -6
Cruiser actions do seem to be the course of the war against Russia. Long-term, torpedo armed craft are going to be important. Right now, they are crap...as shall be seen shortly. I will not turn down any engagement which Italian naval officers would have deemed fine. The point of this is to see how these ships perform in combat...not to game the system to 'win.'
As for gun size, I think as the armor requirements for adequate protection increase, we will see Italian ship designers move to smaller main guns to compensate for the armor tonnage.
My hope with the idea to 'win' a fleet action will be to provide too many targets and allow my destroyers a free reign.
However...
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Dec 9, 2016 0:18:17 GMT -6
Great Britain is appalled that Italy of all nations has more battleships. They commence an incredible dozen battleships at once build. By Jingo! Tensions rise with Great Britain, France, Russia, and the United States...too many ships, they cry. Italy must be humbled. Italy's prestige rises (though oddly not the naval minister, whose ships are widely mocked by naval theorists)...and when Angola falls to disorder, it is the Italian navy that arrives first and secures the colony. By 1902, the following upgrades to the small ships have been laid down: The battleship's only improvement is an increase in casemate armor. The Umbria class sacrifices a knot of speed for more armor on the belt and turrets. (Just realized that it has tertiary guns...which I forgot to remove. Must have been the Amaretto.) The new Brescia light cruisers have an additional two 8" guns. The new Indomito class torpedo boats add an additional torpedo tube with the extra 100 ton displacement. Italy once again sends forces to the African coast to contain another outbreak of native uprising. The Tsar decides it's finally time to put Italy in her place and declares war. The state of the world navies at that moment... The Italian battleship fleet is short ranged, with cramped accommodations. It has no capability to blockade the Russian ports. Russia knows she cannot blockade Italy without bases in the Mediterranean. The war stretches out with the only action isolated cruiser warfare on the trade routes. Italy's light cruisers do not acquit themselves well. However, a pair of Russian armored cruisers make the mistake of attacking an escorted convoy south of Sicily. In an all day action, the two cruisers are defeated by the superior speed and gunnery of our Carlo Alberto class armored cruisers. Truly a great day for Italian prestige!
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Dec 8, 2016 22:24:01 GMT -6
Inspired by a tiny battleship in the best designs thread... I have decided to play a RtW game with a ludicrous design restriction. No predreadnoughts greater than 8000 tons. No dreadnoughts greater than 16000 tons. No armored cruisers greater than 8000 tons - until battlecruisers unlock, in which case no armored or battlecruisers greater than 16000 tons. Very Large Fleets No varied technology No historical resources Can Italy survive with such tiny ships? We shall see. Here are the legacy designs: The low costs of these ships enables Italy to have the second most battleships in the world...
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Dec 5, 2016 20:30:21 GMT -6
Keep in mind only three nations had the capability and requirements to build carriers but that doesn't mean other nations couldn't or shouldn't. Well, technically 5 nations did build aircraft carriers, its just that only 3 completed their designs, and much earlier before the other 2 started trying to build aircraft carriers. I am of course talking about Germany and Italy, both of which nearly completed their own aircraft carrier but never got them into service. France says hello... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Béarn
|
|