|
Post by babylon218 on Oct 23, 2023 5:43:08 GMT -6
For a battleship engagement (Russia has no battleships - they started this war with 4 CAs but a previous encounter eliminated 2 of those)... 1 AMC and 2 DDs are not going to cut the mustard! Was the AMC called 'Kamchatka' by any chance? If so, that might actually qualify as a Russian victory!
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Mar 10, 2021 3:40:32 GMT -6
I'd like an option for hydrogen peroxide torpedoes. Extreme damage potential due to high speed, with an 80% chance the ship carrying it blows up on launch, blows up on the launcher being hit, blows up transmitting into tropical sea zones, or blows up each month. Make it an event with the options being: "Yay, fireworks!" and "No. No. No, no, no. NO." Or have it be an option in the doctrines screen which nobody will ever switch on because hydrogen peroxide is the most-effective self-destruct mechanism put on a warship since Beatty decided "we don't need that 'anti-flash protection', right? Cordite's perfectly safe! It's not like it's known for being volatile or rapidly-combustible!" I don't! The decomposition of hydrogen peroxide used as a catalyst in torpedoes and rockets is what destroyed the Kursk. The same device sank the HMS Sidon. The leak in the Sidon, a torpedo with no warhead, blew the front of the submarine completely off. Thank you, HP is far too dangerous for me. That was sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Mar 9, 2021 18:08:20 GMT -6
I'd like an option for hydrogen peroxide torpedoes. Extreme damage potential due to high speed, with an 80% chance the ship carrying it blows up on launch, blows up on the launcher being hit, blows up transmitting into tropical sea zones, or blows up each month. Make it an event with the options being: "Yay, fireworks!" and "No. No. No, no, no. NO."
Or have it be an option in the doctrines screen which nobody will ever switch on because hydrogen peroxide is the most-effective self-destruct mechanism put on a warship since Beatty decided "we don't need that 'anti-flash protection', right? Cordite's perfectly safe! It's not like it's known for being volatile or rapidly-combustible!"
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Mar 8, 2021 6:16:06 GMT -6
Okay, about time I actually got on with this. One, I am going to try and avoid engagements close to the French Channel Coast. Why? No reason! Generally speaking though, my plan is to try and eliminate the French colonial forces in the opening months of the war so I can concentrate my fleets in the Mediterranean and Northern Europe. Failing that, I'm going to try and pursue a campaign in Indochina to remove the majority of France's colonial income long-term - something that is going to be a challenge in of itself, and I'm inclined to pursue a Mediterranean Campaign over that if feasible. The important part either way is to reduce the French threat sufficiently that I can concentrate the carriers. Regardless which route I take, I need air cover.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Mar 2, 2021 18:06:07 GMT -6
Just want to update my suggestion. There should be only one destroyer leader per destroyer flotilla. The ships could be designated DDL or DL. The flotilla size should be about 6 to 8 destroyers. The reason is the limit the number of destroyer leaders that can be built. Example: 40 destroyers with 8 per flotilla would allow for 5 destroyer leaders plus one or two spares. These ships can only be used by the AI as destroyer leaders. They should be about 1.2 percent bigger as allowed from the biggest destroyers a nation can build. Example: 1500 ton standard destroyer would yield an 1800 ton destroyer leader. You could also implement a tick box on light cruisers which will designate this class of cruisers as flotilla leaders. Just thought I'd mention: in my current GB AAR I did design some light cruiser Flotilla leaders, and the game has seemed to prioritise them as screening forces (so leading the destroyers). I suspect the game might take note of design choices like 4 or 5 inch guns as opposed to 6 inch guns, or short range over medium or long range, or even possibly displacement, or a combination thereof. Of course, Flotilla leaders are sort of irrelevant (as far as cruisers are concerned) going into the '30s because destroyers are so much larger and better-armed that 6 inch gun cruisers are far better suited. Destroyer Leaders are a good idea though.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Mar 2, 2021 17:57:09 GMT -6
All countries besides the UK and USA can go 10% over treaty limits to simulate that. Because a democracy would never circumvent a lawfully signed naval limitation treaty by, hypothetically, "refitting" an aircraft carrier with torpedo and AA defenses while its under construction to take advantage of a part of the treaty intended for rebuilds; or perhaps filling the torpedo defense bulges with drinking water to take advantage of the definition of displacement used in the treaty ; or building a cruiser with magazine box protection to treaty displacement only to have a decent belt of armour that is perfectly sized for said cruiser siting in a warehouse nearby . I mean, the Treaty never said you couldn't do that.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Mar 2, 2021 13:39:52 GMT -6
The ‘New Napoleon’
February 1932 saw the House of Commons approve the Naval Defence Act, 1932, authorising an increase in the naval budget to provide for the construction of several heavy cruisers in order to counter the increased threat from France. The first of these heavy cruisers (which were already being planned based on the Heavy Cruiser A2 design) would be laid down in April of that year as ‘HMS York’. Armed with twelve 9.2-inch guns in four triple turrets arranged as superfiring pairs fore and aft, twelve 4.5-inch dual purpose guns in shielded twin mounts, eleven 2pdr pom-poms, twenty-six 20mm Oerlikons, and two triple torpedo launchers, these ships were designed to locate and deter the heavy cruisers of other nations, and in particular those of France, as the Warspite-Class battlecruisers could not hunt down every French heavy cruiser simultaneously. April would also see the Avro Firefly selected to replace the Baulton Paul Barracuda as RAF Coastal Command’s main flying boat.
British Heavy Cruiser 'HMS York'.
August saw a change in government in France, with Allington cautioning against too much optimism for a reduction in tensions when asked for comment by The Observer.
The next month saw a decision to convert the older Kale and Wear-Class Destroyers for use as convoy escorts to deputise for the worn-out Gala-Class. The rebuild would see their 4.5-inch guns replaced by two dual-purpose twin mounts, the fitting of fire control directors, the removal of one torpedo launcher, and the replacement of the older engines for lower-power units capable of 26kn – too slow for realistic fleet operations, but plenty enough for convoy escort duty.
January 1933 would be the month that the FAA would approve the Bristol Roc to operate alongside the Supermarine Gauntlet.
In March, British agents in Paris managed to gain access to details of the French Battleship ‘Courbet’, which had begun construction the previous year. Armed with ten 380mm guns in five twin turrets, fourteen 150mm guns in twin turrets, and eight 100mm dual-purpose guns. The main belt was only 12 inches thick, though Allington suspected it was probably inclined for maximum protection, with a deck 3.5 inches thick. Certainly a dangerous ship, but not requiring any immediate response beyond ‘St. Vincent’ and ‘Ushant’ already under construction.
French Battleship 'Courbet'.
Much of the destroyer rebuild programme completed in May 1933, with eight of the Gala-Class destroyers being scrapped for replacement by the rebuilt Wears and Kales. This freed up sufficient funds to lay down the second ‘York-Class’ heavy cruiser as ‘HMS Lincolnshire’.
The Labour First Lord of the Admiralty, A.V. Alexander, began pressing the Admiralty to build more cruisers to counter the threat of the French heavy cruisers and the new American light cruisers of the Raleigh and Columbia-Classes. Allington resisted his calls for nine new cruisers, stating unequivocally that the budget could not stand such a building pace, but agreeing to find the funds to lay down six. Meanwhile, Ordnance reported it had developed a dual-purpose 5.25-inch gun mount.
To fund the new cruiser programme, construction of ‘Ushant’ was temporarily suspended. A third York-Class was laid down as ‘HMS Devonshire’, with a fourth ship to follow in October as ‘HMS Norfolk’. Meanwhile, detailed design work began on the B2 Light Cruisers.
British 'Crown Colony-Class' Light Cruiser 'Jamaica'.
The beginning of the year saw the embezzler Alexandre Stavisky found dead in a chalet in Chamonix. While French Police ruled the death a suicide, many Parisian newspapers suspected he had been shot by the police. In the aftermath of Stavisky’s death, details of his links to the French establishment emerged and led to the dismissal of several government ministers. In August, mass public protests and riots erupted, organised by the monarchist ‘Action Francaise’, conservative ‘Croix-de-Feu’, and the fascist ‘Mouvement Franciste’. Several protesters were killed when police opened fire, prompting the Mouvement Franciste rioters to storm the Palais Bourbon. The events of the 6 August Crisis caused the resignation of the centre-left Prime Minister Edouard Daladier to resign, leading to a right-wing coalition led by Marcel Bucard. Bucard was a classic Fascist strongman, cut from the same cloth as Mussolini in terms of his militaristic stance, fondness for military parades, and extreme anti-communist stance. He was also a fervent anti-semitic. He quickly abolished the Third Republic and established an authoritarian-totalitarian state.
Allington was extremely concerned by the Bucardist coup, and when the government pushed for cuts amidst the September 1933 economic crisis he argued furiously against it, even speaking before a Parliamentary Committee separately from Alexander. October would see the laying down of four B2 Light Cruisers; the ‘Crown Colony-Class’ Cruisers ‘Jamaica’, ‘Bermuda’, ‘Gibraltar’, and ‘Bahamas’. Meanwhile, design work had begun on their larger cousins of the A1 Design, the first of which would be laid down the following January as ‘Leicester’.
British 'Town (1933)-Class' Light Cruiser 'Leicester'.
The large-scale cruiser programme won Allington some applause in the Conservative papers and to a degree offset his vocal opposition to the MacDonald cabinet. Unfortunately, ‘York’s’ sea trials proved somewhat disappointing as she struggled to reach her 30kn design speed. February saw Baldwin’s Conservatives returned to Whitehall, this time in Coalition with the Liberals. With war with France seeming inevitable, the two parties agreed to appoint the Conservative MP Winston Spencer Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty. Churchill and Allington got along well, though Allington considered Churchill somewhat domineering and ‘a little too eager to get stuck in’. Churchill helped Allington secure funding from Parliament to complete the two Camperdowns – suspended in favour of the cruiser programme. ‘Howe’ was scrapped to release additional funds. While this technically left the Navy with fewer than three battle squadrons, Allington did not feel ‘Howe’ would contribute much to a modern battleship duel, and the ‘St. Vincent’ would complete by July in any case.
In March, Allington began to order the Admiral-Class Battleships in for rebuilds, consisting of relatively short and inexpensive modernisations. 5.25-inch dual purpose guns replaced the 4.5-inch secondary battery, AA directors were fitted alongside a formidable arsenal of 28 20mm and pom-pom mounts each, and the fire control system was modernised. To save costs and get the ship’s back into service as quickly as possible, they would not receive the 50-calibre 14-inch gun recently developed. ‘Nelson’ would be the first ship to receive modernisation.
‘St. Vincent’ commissioned in June 1934, with ‘Anson’ following ‘Nelson’ in for modernisation. The Air Ministry accepted the De Havilland Defiant fighter to replace the obsolete but venerable Vickers Gannet Mk.III.
Rumours surfaced in July that France had suspended the Courbet’s construction due to financial difficulties. Given his own recent financial troubles, Allington sympathised. With ‘Hermes’ in ordinary and vacant of aircraft, and in any event incapable of carrying a respectable air wing, she was sold off for scrap.
‘Anson’ rejoined the fleet in October, trading places with ‘Rodney’.
January 1935 witnessed the laying down of ‘HMS Salford’, a second ‘Leicester-Class’ cruiser, after the Clyde shipyards were short on orders and offered a competitive price.
‘Ushant’ commissioned in February, having been delayed slightly by the decision to fit her with a new, more-advanced director system. Meanwhile, France attempted to respond to a rebellion in the Dutch East Indies by seizing the island of Sumatra – ostensibly to protect shipping passing through the Malacca Straits from pirates, Ducard rejecting the idea that British ships based at Singapore would act to protect French shipping. It was exactly because of the proximity of Sumatra to Singapore that Allington and Churchill both advised the Foreign Office to take whatever steps necessary to prevent the French seizure of the island. Churchill stated “Ducard will not stop at just Sumatra. We cannot allow this to go any further than it has already gone.”
Fortunately, France backed down. However, Ducard openly denounced the British ultimatum, accusing the British of conspiring to put a stranglehold on French Indochina by maintaining their dominance over the Malacca Strait. Believing war was imminent in the next few weeks, Allington issued orders to partially-mobilise the Home Fleet and start crewing the ships which had been waiting in ordinary. He also issued a series of prewritten orders, to be activated as needed later.
‘Rodney’ returned to the fleet in March, and ‘Collingwood’ took her place in Portsmouth’s No.1 Basin.
‘Lincolnshire’ commissioned the following month, as Ducard’s government formally declared war on Britain over the Sumatra Affair. The strategic situation didn’t justify all twelve Battleships of the Royal Navy being in active service, so only the four ‘Camperdowns’ were kept on alert to contain the French Northern and Atlantic Fleets. Meanwhile, ‘Warspite’ was brought in for a rebuild replacing her 4.5-inch guns with 5.25-inch weapons, adding new fire control equipment, and twelve 2pdr pom-pom guns. She was also redesignated from Battlecruiser to Fast Battleship.
A new Mediterranean Fleet was organised under Admiral Sir Dudley Pound, led by ‘Inflexible’ and accompanied by ‘Eagle’, ‘Emerald’, ‘Enterprise’, ‘Endeavour’, and ‘Euphrates’, as well as the Heavy Cruiser ‘York’ and eight Kennet-Class Destroyers.
The Pacific Fleet under Admiral Sir Frederic Dreyer was ordered to hunt down and destroy the French heavy cruisers operating East of Suez, and Dreyer would resolve to begin by ordering ‘New Zealand’ and ‘Elephant’ to the Indian Ocean in order to eliminate the French squadron off Madagascar or, failing that, drive them into the East Indies. Meanwhile, Dreyer would prepare for an invasion of French Indochina to force the French squadron in the area to battle, beginning with the relatively undefended region of Tonkin. Though Tonkin lacked coastal batteries, unlike Annam and Cochin China, it did fall within the range of the French airbase at Port Bayard. For this reason, Dreyer kept ‘Ark Royal’ and his three remaining light cruisers in the area and requested further carrier reinforcements. The airbase at Hong Kong was to be built up as quickly as possible to attempt to suppress Fort Bayard, and the Light Carrier ‘Albion’ was sent to support Dreyer.
Seven years after taking his post of First Sea Lord, Allington was already thrust into the second war of his tenure. This time, he was determined to end it with success.
Screenshots to follow. Also, I'll post soon explaining my intentions in this war, since I have got something of a strategy which I'd like input on. Oh, also, when I do get the new screenshots up, you'll notice the top-down images look different. I've changed the deck colours in my preferences to reflect the deck colours used by the various nations semi-historically. It looks really good on some of the older designs.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Mar 2, 2021 6:03:38 GMT -6
Fascinating. It is almost as if the AI is genuinely trying to implement a “course de guerre” strategy to fight a superior main battle fleet. With apologies to the developers, I did not think the game AI could be that sophisticated. Let's not give the AI too much credit. . I believe there was an issue in RtW1 where the AI could get stuck in a never ending sub-expansion loop if you gave it too big a thrashing. That being said, the war with France ended before I could deliver such a thrashing (assuming I didn't lose more DDs first). I suppose the French AI could have gotten hit by the Inconsistent Naval Policy trait twice in a row. To add to the Intel, I know for a fact France suspended construction of a BC in '27 due to financial issues, but their newest BC is from 1917,so either that Intel was one of their old BCs being rebuilt (the timing's about right) or France started a new BC and then cancelled it.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 28, 2021 18:28:13 GMT -6
First, thank you for the praise! It really does make it worthwhile knowing that others are interested and enjoying this. Second, feedback is always welcome! And you make a good point RE: Quality over Quantity. Here's the almanac page for the current date for everyone to have a look at: View AttachmentSo, of interest to note: The USA currently has a larger budget (by about 15%), but most of that is being spent on their CL programme: by my reckoning, each of their CL should be costing them about 1.8Mn per month, and their monthly budget after fundamental expenditures like Maintenance and Research. They also have more aircraft than I do, and may be performing gunnery training, so by my reckoning their monthly funds available for construction is roughly equivalent to mine, meaning with their current programme they're either running a deficit or they're just about breaking even. Now, I'm also running a deficit (3.5M per month with 21M reserves). But, I'll be finishing five Tartars within the next six months, which should allow me to break even barring any budget events: Failing that, I may have to suspend one of the Camperdowns for a few months to build up some surplus. For the new construction, the CA counter is evidently the most pressing, so I think your suggestion to build the CA design as a priority is probably pretty sound. The only caveat is that France has seven CAs and tensions with them are high (7). Now, I've assigned Australia and New Zealand to the Pacific Fleet to counter the Battlecruiser Tourville (6x12", 26kn, c.1913) and two of their CAs: the Montcalm with 10x9" guns (though only an 8-gun broadside) and the Chanzy with 8x10" guns. Neither are well armoured, and neither can outrun the Warspites (and that's before we add Ark Royal to the mix!) so I'm gambling I can win a quick victory and sink them ant then bring either Australia or New Zealand back to Europe to help against the rest of the French Fleet. I still have Warspite and Indefatigable in Home Waters and my battleline vastly outnumbers that of France, so I'm not worried on that front. The issue is math: They have 2 CAs in SE Asia, 2 in N Europe, and... oh, the other three? They're scattered over the entire globe! One's off W Africa right now (but I suspect they're on FS, so they'll keep moving), another's leading a small French Squadron in the Indian Ocean, and the third is in the S Pacific. The irony is this is exactly why I built the Warspites, and I don't have enough of them. I'm really regretting not taking France's colonies off her now... France has had a consistently higher budget than Germany and Russia, and they haven’t been at war with you recently, so why on earth is their navy so small? I mean aside from those heavy cruisers, nearly every other power in the game should have an advantage over them. Well, there are a few possibilities. Firstly, I think I recall reading France reducing her budget a few times due to social unrest. Secondly, what you can't see in that screenshot is that France has over 40 subs and has been preempting the Bohemian Corporal with the Atlantic Wall by about a decade! I just checked my Intel reports, and they've built at least two 12" and 6" coastal batteries in Western France since the war, and have a total of 30 across their entire empire. They've also built a ton of airbase - me and the US have 600 aircraft each. France has half that, and is still beating both Germany and Russia. Also, while France's budget is superior to Germany's right now, Germany's base resources is quite a bit higher (France is at around 16,000, Germany 18,000). Remember, I recently gave the Germans a big pasting, so their budget is probably recovering still. As for the rest, all I know for sure is that France has been suspending construction of various ships, including its CAs, for years. I think they must have ordered too many ships at once and then the AI kept the programme going to its full conclusion. Other than that, I got nothing. EDIT: I just checked; all but two of those subs were built from 1922, and SIXTEEN were built in 1928, with another 11 built between 1925 and 1927. Yeah, I think we found where France's budget went! EDIT 2: Oh yeah...France appears to have had collosal budget trouble. I had an Intel report in 1923 that France had a balance of about 500. Now, three of their CAs, a CL, and four subs commissioned in '23/'24, France's massive sub programme started in '25, and for the past few years they've been rebuilding CAs and BCs into mediocre CVLs. I almost don't want to force a war and obliterate that decade of sub, Cruiser and carrier build-up out of pity Almost.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 28, 2021 11:55:04 GMT -6
You know, RTW2 is a game of ups and downs. Sometimes, it seems like, no matter what you do, it's always wrong, as though the game is specifically made to screw you over. Other times... View Attachment...it makes you feel sorry for the AI. Not in-game, but I genuinely just looked at that image and then clicked 'OK' to clear the message! I think I may need to take a break from this game for a few days!
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 28, 2021 11:03:26 GMT -6
First, lovely job cranking out the high quality content at a fast pace. I have been reading this with great interest. Second, if I may weigh in on the battlecruiser/heavy cruiser debate, it occurs to me that at present, the cost difference between the B2 and A2 is roughly that of an 81:55 ratio, such that for the cost of five battlecruisers, you could get eight heavy cruisers. I don’t know for sure what the dispositions of the other powers are, but I would think that quantity would have to be a bit more important than quality to Britain as it has so much of the map to defend and an increasingly smaller budget ratio to the other powers as the game goes on. Parity in many areas might be preferable over supremacy in a few. First, thank you for the praise! It really does make it worthwhile knowing that others are interested and enjoying this. Second, feedback is always welcome! And you make a good point RE: Quality over Quantity. Here's the almanac page for the current date for everyone to have a look at: So, of interest to note: The USA currently has a larger budget (by about 15%), but most of that is being spent on their CL programme: by my reckoning, each of their CL should be costing them about 1.8Mn per month, and their monthly budget after fundamental expenditures like Maintenance and Research. They also have more aircraft than I do, and may be performing gunnery training, so by my reckoning their monthly funds available for construction is roughly equivalent to mine, meaning with their current programme they're either running a deficit or they're just about breaking even. Now, I'm also running a deficit (3.5M per month with 21M reserves). But, I'll be finishing five Tartars within the next six months, which should allow me to break even barring any budget events: Failing that, I may have to suspend one of the Camperdowns for a few months to build up some surplus. For the new construction, the CA counter is evidently the most pressing, so I think your suggestion to build the CA design as a priority is probably pretty sound. The only caveat is that France has seven CAs and tensions with them are high (7). Now, I've assigned Australia and New Zealand to the Pacific Fleet to counter the Battlecruiser Tourville (6x12", 26kn, c.1913) and two of their CAs: the Montcalm with 10x9" guns (though only an 8-gun broadside) and the Chanzy with 8x10" guns. Neither are well armoured, and neither can outrun the Warspites (and that's before we add Ark Royal to the mix!) so I'm gambling I can win a quick victory and sink them ant then bring either Australia or New Zealand back to Europe to help against the rest of the French Fleet. I still have Warspite and Indefatigable in Home Waters and my battleline vastly outnumbers that of France, so I'm not worried on that front. The issue is math: They have 2 CAs in SE Asia, 2 in N Europe, and... oh, the other three? They're scattered over the entire globe! One's off W Africa right now (but I suspect they're on FS, so they'll keep moving), another's leading a small French Squadron in the Indian Ocean, and the third is in the S Pacific. The irony is this is exactly why I built the Warspites, and I don't have enough of them. I'm really regretting not taking France's colonies off her now...
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 27, 2021 6:16:18 GMT -6
Imperial Naval Plan, 1932 (Cont.)
Following the initial round of design sketches, Allington circulated a series of revisions based on the comments of the Board and trusted Captains:
Allington resolved to put the Super-battleship to one side for the time being and focus on improving the regular battleship concept. A2 saw a refinement of the armour scheme by reducing the thickness on the turret roofs (still effective out to 26,000 yards) and strengthening the maximum thickness of the armoured deck. Furthermore, two more dual-purpose turrets were added and the armament arrayed in two levels. Further weight savings by revising the ammunition allowances allowed the conning tower armour to be increased to 5 inches - protective against most cruiser guns - and the secondary turrets were increased to 3.5 inches to resist destroyer-calibre gunfire.
The Station Cruiser B3 design (now frequently being referred to as a Battlecruiser) reduced the main armament to 12-inch guns, allowing a slight increase in armour and the addition of two more secondary gun mounts. An extra knot of speed was also available. Despite these changes, the overall cost per unit did not noticeably increase.
Heavy Cruiser A2 revised the main armament to twelve 9.2-inch guns and saved weight by reducing the underwater protection system. A hangar was provided for the seaplane allocation, which was increased from one aircraft to two. Unit costs actually increased due to the increase in number of guns, but Allington was prepared to accept this, feeling this presented a much better balance in design.
Revisions of Light Cruiser A1 had not managed to make any serious savings to justify compromises in capability, but B2 would improve on B1 by implementing an armoured magazine box and rationalising the ammunition allowance considerably. The result was a significantly lighter and cheaper hull. Allington was seriously considering a high-low mix of A Cruisers for squadron duties (raider hunting and fleet operations) and B Cruisers for independent cruising.
Standard Destroyer C1 was an effort to combine the firepower of design B with the torpedo capabilities of design A. The X mount would be reduced to a single gun from the B design, while the two torpedo launchers from the A design were each reduced by one tube.
In response to concerns over the utility of the Escort Sloop design, the Admiralty investigated the possibility of a small 'Escort Destroyer' design. Design A1 would have a top speed of 30kn and mount six torpedo tubes, four 4.5-inch dual-purpose guns, four sets of depth charge throwers and two racks. An A2 design was also being considered, with accepted a speed of 28kn for reduced unit costs.
For reference, the main issue with reducing the range on CL-A1 was that it didn't save enough weight or cost to justify the reduced anti-raider capability (and there are still plenty of colonial powers to worry about), and I didn't want to sacrifice the splinter protection over the machinery spaces by implementing a magazine box. I don't mind running that risk with the economy cruisers, but if these ships are going to fight the Americans, I'd rather they not have to fight their own engines too.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 26, 2021 17:42:41 GMT -6
A thought I had: with 'Frigates' being a pretty big part of post-war fleets, any chance of expanding the later-game KE design permissions so we can have ships like the Ww2 British convoy sloops/Frigates? With how it sounds you're changing sub warfare, this might actually make such ships relevant as overseas gunboat for certain Trade-related scenarios.
But as it currently stands, you can't emulate a convoy sloop in RTW with KEs because KEs can't have twin or superimposed mounts, and you can't make them as DEs because DDs have to have torpedoes.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 26, 2021 17:34:22 GMT -6
I think 13" guns are perhaps a bit awkward for a cruiser-killer - they feel unnecessarily heavy against cruisers, especially given that you only need to defeat a ~5" belt, but at the same time I don't think that they're heavy enough to be effective against a modern capital ship. Thus, I might look into the feasibility of fitting, say, a 2x3x16" battery onto the same displacement with similar armor protection, if you want to give it a heavy punch to throw at an opposing capital ship despite its glass jaw, or at cutting costs or maybe improving speed or armor protection by reducing the main battery to 11" or 12" guns. There's a big step in tonnage costs between Torpedo Protection 2 and Torpedo Protection 3, so I would probably cut a corner there to either cut costs or improve the design's likely survivability in a gunnery duel with another 10" cruiser, especially if this is meant more as an overseas ship than a home-waters design. I might also suggest using the 9" gun instead of the 10" gun as in my experience the 9" gun is adequate, and anyways this seems to be the 'economy' option compared to Station Cruiser B2/B1; another option might be to switch from the superfiring-pair-forward+1-aft 3x3x10" main battery to an all-forwards or perhaps a balanced 2x4x10" battery.
Having said this, my experience with cruiser-killer type battlecruisers and heavy cruisers is relatively limited, as I don't usually build either type; I prefer a more Renown-like "economy" battlecruiser (except with battleship-grade armor over at least the magazines and turrets instead of the more historical moderately-heavy cruiser armor that they were built with or the slightly higher standard of armor to which they were improved) and answer the question of computer-built heavy cruisers by handling my 5" and 6" light cruisers aggressively - AI-designed heavy cruisers with four- or five-inch armor belts don't stand up to close-range 6" fire that well, and while they're a bit more resistant to 5" gunfire enough hits will sink anything; on top of that, standing off generally favors the ship carrying the heavier guns - and hoping I'll have two or three of them against one heavy cruiser when push comes to shove. I also don't particularly care to design specific counters as I find it's fairly often the case that they'll never show up in the situation for which they were designed, especially if the thing that they were specifically meant to counter is relatively rare or adequately answered by other elements of the fleet. Either of these is in my opinion fine, though I usually forego torpedo protection on light cruisers and probably wouldn't go above TP1 even on a late-game 12,000t CL; I might also drop from Long to Medium range on the twelve-gun design for either more turret armor or a larger secondary battery, and cut the ammunition allowance on the B1 design from 200 to 160-170 rounds per gun as, at least until deploying autoloaders, I don't find more ammunition than that to be necessary for a 6" SP battery. I personally would probably go with a magazine box armor scheme and use the tonnage saved to fit more guns onto the A design or cut costs on the B design, but then I tend to favor firepower and economy over armor on CLs on the theory that they're at best marginally resistant to 6" armaments anyways and so are better served by hitting as hard as they possibly can than by being as resilient as they can be made to be.
I might look at something halfway between the A and B designs, because I don't really like dropping to four torpedoes on the B design but would rather have a heavier gun armament than the six 4" guns on the A design - 7x4" in a 3x2+1 configuration with six or seven torpedo tubes is probably viable on 1,500 tons and would be more in line with existing destroyer designs while still representing an improvement in fleet escort capability; it might also be capable to combine the 4x2 main battery of the B design with the eight torpedo tubes of the A design if you're willing and able to increase the displacement to 1,600 or perhaps 1,700 tons, though of course that would come with increased unit costs.
From the perspective of playing the game, I would prefer to go with the minesweeper (and an ASW derivative thereof), as I consider the speed and armament of a corvette to be almost entirely irrelevant within the game and thus the greater cost of the convoy sloop is ill-justified.
From a more role-playing perspective, the sloop is what I would prefer to build if I had an unlimited budget while the minesweeper is more in line with what I would likely build given financial constraints; if old, small destroyers have been retained then I might also look into refitting them for service in the minesweeping and ASW roles. Another thing that I might do under fiscal constraints is go for a compromise that satisfies nobody and build essentially a second-class fleet destroyer of about a thousand tons, on which I could hopefully fit four 4" guns, six torpedo tubes, and either minesweeping gear or a full ASW outfit while maintaining a design speed fast enough to work with existing fleet destroyers, or failing that then at least with the heavier warships, which could then be used as a fleet destroyer, a minesweeper, or an ASW unit as required, even though its lesser size and armament would leave it less satisfactory as a fleet destroyer than a 1,500-ton vessel such as you proposed earlier in this section while its greater costs compared to slower, more lightly-armed purpose-built minesweeping and ASW corvettes would leave it less satisfactory in those roles, and of course there would also be the issue of the number of ships built, as you could end up in a situation where you're trying to fulfill three distinct missions while only really having enough suitable ships for one or two of them. Which, of course, isn't exactly ahistorical.
Edit: Looks like we've been posting across each other all afternoon - you post something, then I start on a reply to what you wrote and find that I've taken long enough for you to post something else, then I start work on a response to that, post it, and find you've responded to my previous post. I prefer the single-caliber SP or DP secondary batteries of most British and American ships to the mixed-caliber SP or SP & HAA secondary/tertiary batteries of a number of French, German, Italian, and Japanese ships, myself, and frequently use 4" DP batteries even after 5" DP becomes available since it's lighter and still reasonably effective, but I thought I'd bring it up since a dozen 4" guns feels a bit light compared to historical practice, given that the 4" DP battery was the only secondary armament on the ship.
I've noted a few of your points and will investigate acting on them tomorrow (it's evening where I am). Just felt I should clarify regarding the sloops: I'd be building minesweepers as well as convoy escorts, not either or. As far as the heavy armament on the convoy sloop goes, that's partly to try to represent the convoy sloops (later termed Frigates) the RN actually used in WWII (Black Swan, River, Loch classes, etc), which were sort of intended to at least get in the way of small surface raiders as well as guarding against sub attacks, and I've had these kind of corvettes show up in battle before. Even if I lose four in a battle, if they sink one or two DDs, they've inflicted a similar amount of economic loss on the enemy - and there's also of course the fact that just the presence of these and their mediocre firepower might deter attacking DDs enough to let me get DDs to support or to get the merchants out of immediate danger. That's being optimistic, I admit. It's for RP reasons more than anything. That said, I'm still going to look at an 'Escort' or small Destroyer like you suggest, maybe emulating the Hunt-Class. And since writing this design section I've investigated converting some of the older DDs to escorts and I think it should be doable.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 26, 2021 15:58:43 GMT -6
As to the two new battleship designs, I like both of them well enough, though I will say again that my experiences with magazine-boxed capital ships that get into gunnery engagements has been somewhat mixed. I think the ammunition stowage on both designs is perhaps a bit extravagant, especially on Battleship A1 - I generally provide ~130 rounds per gun for 6x15-16" 'economy' capital ships and ~115 rounds per gun for more typical 8-10x15-16" designs - but on the other hand a plentiful ammunition supply isn't exactly what I'd describe as a disadvantage in and of itself. I personally would prefer a larger DP battery - especially on Super Battleship A1, since the difference in cost between its current configuration and one enlarged to fit at least an 8x2x4" or preferably a 10-12x2x4" DP battery probably isn't that significant - but on the other hand Battleship A1's 8x2x4" secondary battery does not appear to me too unreasonable by historical standards for an early-'30s design and the only ambivalence about Super Battleship A2's secondary battery that I have by the same metric is that I think that if you were only going to put a dozen 4" guns on a large capital ship then at this point in time you'd probably also have around eight or twelve 5" or 6" SP (maybe nominally DP, as on Richelieu or Yamato) secondary guns for anti-destroyer work.
Yeah, that's all fair. I'm sorta attached to 'dreadnoughts don't have tertiary armaments', even though I realise that A) massively held back the Royal Navy with rubbish 3" secondaries until someone finally kicked Fisher out and let someone less 'tempestuous' have a go; and B) wasn't even that true outside of the Royal Navy. At the same time, the 4" guns seem to do pretty well for now, and I've always felt if destroyers are getting close enough to be engaged by my BBs' secondaries, somethings definitely gone disastrously wrong with the screening force. They'll be upgraded to 5" guns when they become available. I'm not super-serious about the super-battleship. I just put the displacement up to 45,000 to see what I could get and started working back towards the actual Battleship A1 design. There really isn't any need for the super as yet. No one is building large numbers of battleships (in fact, the AI really isn't building much of anything except CVLs and CAs, which is weird - America's only just started a dedicated CV and I'm looking at my third). The American 10x16" monster I know of is the only other 16" battleship, then you have the 6x16" BCs everyone started building almost simultaneously with the Warspites. It's just the older BBs aren't even protected against their own guns anymore, let alone the 15"-gunned Deutschland Germany put out (and their are four Wettins of a similar spec). So I'm sorta just looking at a replacement for those with an eye to getting my foot in the door if the US or France start ramping up BB construction again. I just thought I'd open the Super-BB up for discussion - if only for the laughs. I'll take your advice regarding the shells, though. It might let me get more DP secondaries on, since I really don't mind this ship being a massive AA barge. Any thoughts on the rest of the designs, if you get a chance to look over them?
|
|