|
Post by babylon218 on Oct 20, 2020 15:16:29 GMT -6
HMS Rodney. I know they were hideous, but honestly just for the innovations and novelties in their design the Nelson-Class should be considered, and Rodney gave absolutely sterling service throughout WWII from giving Bismark an absolute caning to bombarding the Normandy coast.
Another one that IMO should get an honourable mention is USS Maryland (BB-46). I have a soft-spot for the Colorado-Class, and Maryland not only survived Pearl Harbour, but participated in the Battle of Midway as one of the support ships, Battle of Tarawa, Battle of Kwajalein, Battle of Saipan, Battle of Leyte Gulf, and the Battle of Okinawa, receiving seven battle stars, the same as Nevada. Yes, Nevada took a lot more damage at Pearl, but it's worth remembering that Oklahoma's Hull shielded Maryland from the initial Japanese torpedo attack, unlike Nevada which was hit. Furthermore, the reason Nevada took so much bomb damage was because, as the only ship in Battleship Row not penned in by or moored to another battleship and so able to manoeuvre, the Japanese focused there attacks on her to sink her in the channel (which likely saved Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Maryland by drawing off Japanese fire). Maryland got 'lucky'. And luck is a sailor's best friend after rum, and the cat.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Oct 20, 2020 14:19:35 GMT -6
A quick overview of the strategic situation in January 1901 before I head to bed. Empress of India should arrive next month, giving us a total of eight first-class battleships. The construction started in January is going to take approximately one more year to complete. I have a bit of a budget surplus, which I'll either turn towards more destroyers or towards a new second-class cruiser. Unfortunately, tensions are rising across the board. The most imminent threat of war is from Italy, but there's barely anything separating her from Germany, France, and Russia. So how big a problem is that? Well... Italy only has one battleship, though its a fairly large one and they have two more building (game is estimating 1903). Until those ships arrive, the Centurions can probably handle that one battleship. The situation in Northern Europe is a bit more worrying. Assuming I don't face a coalition of all three rival powers in the area combined, my Battlefleet can match or best whatever is thrown at them. The cruiser situation isn't nearly so clear-cut however. Russia has four armoured cruisers to my three in the area, and one of those is HMS Blake, a large protected cruiser. Germany has one, and France none (they're all spread out across the Far East). In terms of second-class cruisers, I have seven, Russia four, and Germany three. In other words, I have parity with any two powers in terms of small cruisers in European waters. Just one problem: all of my protected cruisers in Northern Europe combined displace 22,400 tons. The four Russian ships displace 13,000, so on average each Russian ship is heavier than each of mine. More to the point, they're all faster than mine (by one knot). In terms of destroyers, I have 32 in Northern Europe right now, but I plan to send eight to the Med in case Italy goes to war, so in practical terms I have 24. That's enough to beat any one European power, but if I have to face two at the same time, the most favourable array of forces is still 19 destroyers. At worst, the enemy could have 24 themselves, and as a wise gnome once said: "fair fights are for suckers".
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Oct 20, 2020 13:24:19 GMT -6
The Strategic Naval Review
As Allington settled into his new position, he began working on an assessment of the Royal Navy’s strategic position and priorities: ‘The 1900 Strategic Naval Review’.
The review observed that the Royal Navy had a battleship force more than twice the size of any other navy save for the United States, which possessed only two fewer battleships, but each American vessel was individually equal to or worse than each first-class British vessel, and on their displacement he believed it was unlikely the American ships could venture any meaningful distance from their coast in wartime. Nevertheless, Allington conceded the US had managed to escape the ‘two-power standard’.
Above: US Ohio-Class Below: US Michigan-Class
The US aside, the Royal Navy did still maintain parity with its two traditional rivals combined: France and Russia. Combined, the French and Russian fleets had seven battleships, of which only the Russian ‘Imperator Pavel I-Class’ were seen as a serious threat. The French ‘Friedland-Class’ were smaller, more lightly armed, and though they still possessed four 12in guns, these were arranged in four single gun turrets with two on either beam amidships. In practice, this meant that while a joint Russo-French battleline would have a numerical strength of 88% the Royal Navy (not factoring in the ‘Centurions’), in terms of broadside firepower from the main battery the ratio was twenty-four guns to the thirty-two of the Royal Navy, or a percentage of only 75%. Even in the unlikely event of a Franco-German alliance, the odds would scarcely be improved as the German vessels carried guns of only 11in calibre. Britain thus had its two main European rivals, and one potential future rival, covered.
Above: Russian Imperator Pavel I-Class Below: French Friedland-Class
Of more concern to Allington was the prospect of a war with Japan or the United States. While as already mentioned, the Royal Navy could match and defeat the US Navy’s battlefleet, this would come at the expense of home defence. Furthermore, any war with the US or Japan would bring British colonies and shipping under threat. Japan possessed one battleship, ‘Yashima’, displacing 15,600 tons with four 12in guns and sixteen 6in guns. A match for any one of the ‘Majestics’, but capable of ‘utterly smashing’ the ‘Centurions’.
Above: HIJMS Yashima
Outside of the ‘two-power standard’ concerns, there was the matter of commerce protection. The 1900 Strategic Naval Review identified five strategic areas as ‘vital’ to British overseas commerce: the North Atlantic; the Mediterranean; the Indian Ocean; the Cape of Good Hope; and the East Indies. Of these, Allington determined that the Mediterranean, Cape, and East Indies were where the greatest impact on British trade could be inflicted by an enemy concentration. In the East Indies, only France, Japan, and the United States had sufficient port facilities to operate a meaningful raiding force. There was little danger at the Cape itself, but the threat came from the fact that any hostile force at the Cape could disrupt a great deal of British merchant shipping in a short space of time, which obviated the need for long-term basing capabilities. The Mediterranean posed the greatest risk, as France and Italy could operate there at will and employ their battle fleets with ease.
Rather than employing the more traditional method of using colonial stations with a number of cruisers rotated between them, Allington argued for the establishment of, in addition to the Mediterranean Fleet, a Cape Squadron and Far Eastern Fleet. The Cape Squadron would require two first-class cruisers to protect against commerce raiders, while the Far Eastern Fleet would also require at least one battleship and a flotilla of destroyers. The remaining cruiser forces would be provided from the tradition colonial station rotations as before.
The North Atlantic still presented a problem, however. It seemed unacceptable that Britain could defend from the United States, but only at the cost of dominance in her own home waters. The Review therefore recommended the formation of the North Atlantic Fleet from the North American and Caribbean Stations. This fleet would consist of four first-class battleships with two first-class cruisers, and two destroyer flotillas, with reinforcements being available from Britain in the event of war.
In terms of cruisers, Allington felt the Royal Navy lacked sufficient numbers of modern cruisers in all categories. He would discard the idea of the ‘third-class’ cruiser as anything other than a term for those ships which were so outdated they were suitable as nothing else and focus instead on the first- and second-class cruisers for new construction. In this area, the following classes were identified for replacement: ‘Orlando’, ‘Leander’, and ‘Astraea’. Almost all of these ships were identified as obsolete due to speed.
In all, the 1900 Strategic Naval Review identified the need for the following new vessels:
• Six new battleships.
• Six new first-class cruisers.
• Twelve new second-class cruisers.
• Sixteen new torpedo boat destroyers.
As a result of this, the Admiralty would authorise the construction in 1900 of two more ‘Majestics’ (‘HMS Camperdown’ and ‘HMS Ramillies’) and two more ‘Cressys’ (‘HMS Aboukir’ and ‘HMS Bacchante’). Allington also asked the Third Sea Lord and DNC to prepare designs for a more economical first-class cruiser to replace the Orlando-Class, in order to free up ‘HMS Cressy’ and ‘HMS Ariadne’ for the North Atlantic Fleet. This design would need a top speed of at least 20kn, armament of at least two 8in or 9.2in guns and long range for commerce protection duties.
The need for a Far Eastern Fleet seemed to become greater in February when a second Yashima-Class battleship was ordered for the Imperial Japanese Navy from Vickers-Armstrong.
A disarmament conference at the Hague was held in April 1900, but ended without results following accusations by the British delegation that the proposals were aimed at weakening the Royal Navy. Admiral Allington was praised in the national press for his defence of British naval mastery.
In July, the DNC returned with a proposal for the replacement of the Orlando-Class. The design included two 8in guns, ten 4.7in guns, fourteen anti-torpedo boat guns, and a design speed of 20kn. The specification was approved and detailed design work began.
Above: Initial design brief for HMS Hogue, dated January 1900.
The Navy was pulled into a political crisis in September when Prime Minister Lord Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess Salisbury (alternatively referred to as Lord Salisbury) openly criticised Italian naval expansion and defended plans to increase the Mediterranean Fleet as ‘necessary precautions to offset the threat posed by a dangerous, expansionist, and unstable regime’. This was particularly problematic as Salisbury also held the post of Foreign Secretary at the time. One Italian journalist asked Admiral Allington to comment on the Prime Minister’s remarks, to which he replied, “There is nothing in the content of the Prime Minister’s speech which I can find any fault with.”
In October, the ‘HMS Hogue’ began construction to the DNC’s design for replacing the Orlando-Class. Authorisation was also given for a second ship, ‘HMS Euryalus’, to be laid down in December once ‘HMS Sutlej’ joined the fleet.
Above: Hogue-Class Armoured Cruiser, laid down 1900.
Author's Comments:
So, I've decided to stop the first part of the actual gameplay section of the AAR at the beginning of 1901. Most posts probably won't be as long or as image-intensive as this, and probably won't be focused on a single year. It just worked out that way this time. As the situation becomes less game-start-rush and settles in to an established order, there should be less notable events happening.
Now, I know what you're thinking: "But babylon! Even British industry has limits, and you know Germany, the United States, and Japan are going to develop industrially in the near future! That strategic construction plan is unrealistic and is going to be irrelevant in a few years!" And you'd be absolutely right. But that's with the benefit of hindsight. From the perspective of an Admiral in 1900, Britain has an empire to protect and naval hegemony to maintain.
Still, looks like we may need a Mediterranean Fleet sooner rather than later the way tensions with Italy are going. HMS Centurion and HMS Repulse are in the theatre at the moment, but as you may have gathered I don't really rate second-class battleships. I may send either two of the Royal Sovereigns or Majestics with one of the Cressys and 8 of the destroyers. Italy has a lot of destroyers, so that number would definitely need to go up.
EDIT: Correction. Just had a look and the AI has also already sent the two Cressy's set to FS as well as a Blake and Orlando to the Med along with three Leanders.
Yeah, the Leanders aren't staying there. Even the Centurions are almost as fast.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Oct 20, 2020 10:05:14 GMT -6
Okay, so the beginning of my first AAR for RtW2, and my first post on this forum in three years now! I've had a few personal issues to take care of since then which I don't want to go into right now, but suffice it to say that for a while my passion for naval history had been sucked out of me. It has now returned, as you can see!
So, a few notes: 1. This isn't actually my first game of RtW2, but my sixth or seventh. I decided to start with the UK as my first AAR because partly I wanted to play with cruisers, and partly because I started a Germany 1920-start AAR then realised I was running the 1.20 version rather than 1.23 and that around a third of my time was being spent researching German politics and translating various terms! I may come back to something along the same lines at a later date, but for now...
2. I'll be playing through as I post this AAR, so feedback is welcome and encouraged!
3. I've based the designs for the legacy fleet off of real designs from the period (as close as I can get). The only exceptions are the 'Leander' and 'Derwent'. 'Leander' is an Elswick cruiser similar to C.S. Esmerelda which I wanted to include partly out of appreciation for the type and partly to give the character of Admiral Allington a visible influence on the navy. The 'Derwent' is auto-generated with few if any design changes.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Oct 20, 2020 9:50:54 GMT -6
The Battleships were a mix of four ‘Royal Sovereign-Class’, two ‘Centurion-Class’, and three ‘Majestic-Class’, with a fourth ‘Majestic’ under construction. The ‘Royal Sovereign-Class’ had an armament of four 13in guns in two two-gun armoured barbettes, ten 6in casemated guns, and twenty-two anti-torpedo boat guns of various small calibres. They were fairly slow with a speed of only 17kn. The ‘Centurion-Class’ were a pair of smaller ‘second-class’ battleships intended for colonial service, with a greater range, speed of 18kn, and an armament of four 10in guns in two two-gun armoured barbettes, ten 4.7in casemated guns, and twenty smaller anti-torpedo boat guns. In Allington’s view, these two ships were under-gunned, under-protected, and slow, suitable only for colonial duties and even then, only in theatres where enemy forces would be no stronger than one or two armoured cruisers.
Above: Royal Sovereign-Class
Above: Centurion-Class
The pride of the fleet was the ‘Majestic-Class’. Displacing 16,000 tons, the ships were an improved ‘Royal Sovereign-Class’ armed with four 12in guns in two two-gun armoured barbettes, twelve 6in casemated guns, and twenty-two anti-torpedo boat guns. They were one know faster than the ‘Royal Sovereigns’ and better protected. The smaller 12in guns were actually superior to the 13in weapons fitted on the earlier ships. In Allington’s view, the ‘Majestics’ were, “some of the finest warships afloat. They are more than a match for the battleships of any other naval power.”
Above: Majestic-Class
The cruiser force was a truly immense force, numbering 12 first-class cruisers and sixteen second- and third-class cruisers of the ‘Blake’, ‘Orlando’, ‘Cressy’, ‘Leander’, ‘Astraea’, and ‘Eclipse’ classes ranging from 4,300 tons to 12,000 tons displacement and 18kn to 22kn in speed. The oldest of the ‘second-class’ ships was the ‘Leander-Class’, already more than a decade old and practically-speaking were treated more as third-class vessels suited to colonial patrols and little else. These were ‘Elswick’ cruisers, with a protected deck, two 8in guns with 2” gunshields, six 6in deck-mounted guns, and ten smaller anti-torpedo boat guns. Admiral Allington had played a role in designing these ships during his time as Assistant DNC in the mid-1880s and had a fondness for them. Even so, he confessed that by the 1900s they were slow and obsolete, or as Jackie Fisher put it, “Too weak to fight, and too slow to run away”.
Above: Leander-Class
If the ‘Leanders’ were too slow, the ‘Orlando-Class’ was even worse. Making only 18kn they were scarcely better armed than the ‘Leanders’, with two 9.2in guns and only four more 6in guns, though these were in protected casemates rather than open deck mounts. The ‘Orlandos’ were, however, much better protected with a 4in armoured belt. Nevertheless, they were considered unsuitable for fleet duties due to their slow speed and placed on commerce protection duties overseas.
Above: Orlando-Class
At the other end of the spectrum were the ‘Cressy’ and ‘Eclipse’ classes of first and second-class cruisers respectively. With a top speed of 21kn and displacing 12,000 tons, the ‘Cressy-Class’ had an armoured belt of 6in and two 9.2in guns as well as twelve 6in guns. Fast and powerful, two of these ships would be assigned to overseas stations for commerce protection while the third ship HMS Spartiate served as a scout for the Home Fleet. The fourth ship, ‘Sutlej’, was then under construction. The ‘Eclipse-Class’ was a class of four second-class cruisers intended primarily as fleet scouts, with a speed of 20knots. They were heavily armed, with five 6in guns and six 4.7in guns on deck in gunshields, a protective deck of 3in thickness, and fourteen anti-torpedo boat guns. Their shorter range made them less suitable for overseas commerce protection, however.
Above: Cressy-Class
Above: Eclipse-Class
Finally, the fleet also included twenty-four torpedo boat destroyers (or simply ‘destroyers’) of 500 tons with a top speed of 27kn, two 3in guns, four 6-pounder Hotchkiss guns, and four torpedo tubes. These ships were fast, but had short range and were unstable gun platforms due to being somewhat top-heavy as a result of their heavy armament. A further eight ships of this type were under construction as Allington took over as First Naval Lord.
Above: Derwent-Class Destroyer
Above: The world in 1900.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Oct 20, 2020 9:33:52 GMT -6
'Tis to Glory We Steer!
The following is the official authorised history of the development of Her/His Majesties’ Royal Navy under the purview of First Sea Lord George Terrence Allington, later styled 1st Viscount Harwich, and his successors in that office from 1900-1950.
The Royal Navy before 1900:
Since the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, the Royal Navy had been unparalleled in its mastery of the seas, propelling Great Britain and her Empire to control one-quarter of the Earth’s surface and one-third of its people. Despite resurgent threats from France, Russia, and more recently the rising power of a united Germany, Britannia ruled the waves. But the Navy of 1900 resembled little the navy of Horatio Nelson. Wood had given way to iron, the massed batteries of hundred-gun ships such as HMS Victory had given way to small batteries of massive guns, some twelve inches in diameter, supported by a dozen lighter weapons which even still were larger than the largest cannon of Nelson’s day. Wind had been replaced by steam. The age of the sailing frigate had long since passed into the age of the ironclad.
If the Royal Navy of 1900 would be unrecognisable to Nelson, so too would the Royal Navy of 1900 be confused by the navy of today. The first half of the twentieth-century would see changes to the fighting of war at sea almost as great as those seen throughout the second half of the nineteenth: the rise of airpower, the emergence of the submarine, and the extinction of the battleship.
All of that, however, was still to come when Admiral George Terrence Allington succeeded Admiral Sir Frederick Richards as First Naval Lord (later restyles First Sea Lord) in 1899. Having previously commanded both the North American Station and Mediterranean Fleet, Allington had also spent the period 1882-84 as Assistant Director of Naval Construction under Sir William Henry White. During his tenure as C-in-C North American Station, Allington had become convinced of the importance of cruisers in defending Britain’s trade and empire. In response to US Admiral Alfred Theyer Mahan’s ‘Decisive Battle’ theories, he wrote in 1891:
“I am in agreement with the main points, but find fault with the commonly expressed view that a war would be won at sea by a single decisive action between enemy fleets. Trafalgar did not defeat France, but rather the blockade Trafalgar allowed us to maintain. That blockade was not executed by the three-decker ships-of-the-line, but by the sixth and fifth-rate frigates – the precursors of the modern cruising warships. Battleships allow us to fight the enemy, but only cruisers will allow us to beat him.”
Allington thus believed that the Royal Navy should maintain a force of battleships to defend Britain’s vital strategic areas (which he viewed as the Home Islands and the Mediterranean) while using a large number of cruisers to protect British commerce and strangle the commerce of any potential enemy. The job of the battlefleet would be to keep an enemy fleet contained while the cruisers would sink the vessels carrying enemy provisions, thus eroding the enemy nation’s capability to fight.
This view, however, was not preeminent in the late-Victorian Royal Navy, with only the support of Sir William White, then-C-in-C Mediterranean John ‘Jackie’ Arbuthnot Fisher, and Admiral Charles Beresford seeing him appointed as First Sea Lord upon Sir Frederick’s departure in 1899. The fleet he found was a mix of new heavy battleships built under the ‘Naval Defence Act 1889’ and a mix of modern and long-suffering cruisers, torpedo boats, and destroyers.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Jan 8, 2018 16:19:46 GMT -6
KAW regrets that due to our design sketch team (somehow) catching typhoid fever simultaneously, our submissions will lack the usual illustrative element for this design contest. Our CC-1924 proposal is based upon our successful Tung Hai design. It possesses an all-forward armament of 9 13" guns in 3 triple turrets and 20 5" secondary guns in twin turrets protected by 6" plate. The main armament turrets are shielded by 16" faces and 6" tops, with the main belt and deck being 12" and 4" thick respectively. Speed is 28kn, with short range. Total tonnage is 32,000t with a cost per month of 3.9M marks (118.4M total) over 30 months. Schlactkruezer 1924.40d (5 KB) Meanwhile, our CA design mounts 8 10" guns in two quadruple gun turrets (one forward, one aft) and 16 5" secondary guns in unarmoured mounts. The main gunhouses are protected by 8" faces and 2" tops. Belt and deck armour is 8" and 2" respectively. Top speed is 29kn with performance-optimised engines (reliability may suffer during extended high-speed running) and short range. Total displacement is 14,500t and cost per month is 2.5M marks per month (59,400M in total) over 2 years. Grosskreuzer 1924.40d (4.71 KB)
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Jan 8, 2018 4:14:54 GMT -6
cv10 , babylon218 , matlef , parrot : Would you like more time to get in a submission for the current design competition, or will you be passing on this one? Sorry, I've been bogged down with Uni work these past few weeks. I do have a couple of designs ready though, I just need a chance to post them: give me a few hours.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Dec 24, 2017 7:53:11 GMT -6
Thanks for the answers. Regarding blockade, I agree that an aggressive fleet often isn't enough to break a blockade. However, all else being equal (which it most certainly was not in WWI), the more aggressive fleet will be more able to enforce or break a blockade. Perhaps a new modifier can be added "blockade efficiency" that can be changed by fleet posture and perhaps winning battles. This could, say, let a somewhat aggressive fleet count for 10-30% more in blockade points that a more passive fleet, which may be enough to enforce or break a blockade. Worth pointing out: the German strategy in WWI wasn't to break the blockade Mahan-style with a massive fleet battle, but by slowly picking off British capital ships and pulling in Britain's lead. This was one of the purposes behind AG1's coastal raids in 1915-16, which ultimately led to the Battle of Jütland. Also, if the two World Wars proved anything, it's that capital ships don't make a blockade - cruisers do. The Germans defeated the British at Jütland tactically, but strategically the British "won" because Germany didn't have the surface forces to break the British Cruiser patrols in the Norwegian Sea. This is the difficult part with breaking distant blockades: if Britain had employed a close blockade of the German coast, then a Jütland-style victory would have broken the blockade; but with a distant blockade, Germany would have free reign to conduct sweeps, but they wouldn't be able to keep the blockade open - as soon as the German fleet withdrew to their bases to re-coal, the British cruisers would be back on station and sinking German merchantmen. It would have taken Germany actually defeating the Royal Navy and attaining superiority of numbers over the Royal Navy to actually break the blockade - which is what the Germans tried to do. Without that, the Germans wouldn't have been able to hold sea supremacy long enough to neutralise the cruiser patrols. And this is how blockades are already modelled in-game.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Dec 20, 2017 16:05:28 GMT -6
So, to recap, after nearly 15 years of irrelevance in Chinese ship construction, KAW not only won the contract to build the latest class of Chinese battleships, but has actually managed to build twice as many as originally planned? I'm okay with this. Thought you might be, though it's mostly due to a combination of me getting carried away (peacetime turns go by so quickly, especially when you're not designing any ships) and having a habit of accepting any discounted ships that I think I might possibly be able to squeeze into the budget. I'd intended to stop c.1921 when the first two Tung Hais completed and hold a competition for the planned third new battleship and start on replacing the old armored cruisers then, but it's a little late for that now. I'm also slightly concerned that with four ships in the class I might've slightly over-invested in the Tung Hais, but on the other hand they'll probably continue in service for the rest of the game even if I play to 1950, and while I don't have immediate plans to build additional battleships I doubt that they'll be my last class of battleship. Whether or not you had it then, you do now have a 14" gun available. It's of low (Q-1) quality, but as nearly as I can tell only the Japanese have a better 14" gun (though I can't check on Britain or Russia right now due to tensions and also because Russia still has an undeveloped shipbuilding industry). Yeah, I checked and I did have it available, but I decided against it because the 13" guns were better. On the subject of over-investment, I know exactly how you feel. In a recent game as GB I ended up building 6 BCs of a single class with 9 13" guns between 1912-1924, resulting in me losing 2 of them in a single battle to 2 BCs with 15" guns, losing a third to a submarine attack, and having to crash rebuild the remaining three with 6 15" guns just to remain competitive while building a modern BC with the same armament but superior everything else. Needless to say, I won't be doing that again!
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Dec 20, 2017 14:25:11 GMT -6
So, to recap, after nearly 15 years of irrelevance in Chinese ship construction, KAW not only won the contract to build the latest class of Chinese battleships, but has actually managed to build twice as many as originally planned? I'm okay with this. I'm not okay with Britain laying down a BC with 14" guns in German yards when I could swear I only had access to 13" guns during the design process. Blohm und Voss, I blame you for this!!! EDIT: Nevermind, just checked. I did have 14" guns available, it's just their ballistics are worse than the 13" guns I ended up using. D'oh!
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Dec 19, 2017 14:07:39 GMT -6
On a related note... Hurray! I finally won another contract!
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Dec 18, 2017 8:02:48 GMT -6
As Aeson says, personally the >12" 30+kn BCs are prohibitively expensive. I tend to prefer building Repulse-types at that point (I.e. Cheaper BCs with 12" belt and reduced number of heavy guns, but usually with a speed of 28-30kn). They're cheaper, and not much less effective, IMO. Armour starts to become irrelevant against heavy guns >14" calibre by 1920 at all but extreme ranges. I still take the time to properly armour the turrets to try and protect against flash fires, but I don't go over 12" for the belt.
I'll also sometimes build Dunkerque-types to take advantage of the reduced belt length an all-forward turret configuration gives me, and I've been thinking about trying a Nelson-type configuration.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Dec 18, 2017 4:54:27 GMT -6
I've always thought such spotter aircraft were for surveillance and for assisting shipboard fire-control by having a much better overhead view of ranging shots...but were not intended for (nor technically capable of) sole source of fire-control-quality data. (note; talking about a moving seaborne target (i.e., ship) here, not fixed land targets). This is the case. Spotters were used to help the fire controllers range in on a target, not as their own form of fire control. Ranging in on a target is based on knowing how far or short your salvo was relative to the target, which is then translated into a change in azimuth for the next salvo. Aircraft, in theory, provide a much better vantage point for gauging this distance than ship-board spotter crews.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Dec 16, 2017 10:44:03 GMT -6
@fredrik W Will there be no transition from RTW 1 to 2 then, i.e., in RTW 2 you will not be able to start with the early pre-dreadnoughts? If this is a design decision for whatever reasons are apparent to the team, perhaps consider a function where you could export your 1920 RTW 1 fleet into a new start in 1920 for RTW2? I could see much request for this, if it were possible. The way the player faces change is part of the great fun, and the change from Pre-to-Dred is just as exciting as Dred-to-Air. I would love to tackle both in one game. From Fredrik's phrasing (' if starting in 1920') it sounds like there will be a 1900 start date and a 1920 start date.
|
|