|
Post by joebob73 on Mar 2, 2018 20:17:55 GMT -6
One thing I would like is less operations in very bad weather? I don't like having a fleet spawn in the middle of the ocean in a hurricane, and then losing DDs to the storm that I wouldn't have even taken out of port with a storm like that on the way.
Also, nobody could effectively fight in a hurricane, yet I routinely get somewhat acceptable hit rates under such weather conditions.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Feb 28, 2018 16:07:51 GMT -6
I gave up on building MS when my 1700 ton, 2” belted gunboat MS started losing gun duels with subs.
I can understand the usual 200 ton MS losing that, but a 1700 ton ship with a 5-gun broadside of 5” shouldn’t be.
I had been using such ships with the colonial service box checked to take care of overseas tonnage requirements, freeing up cruisers for raiding and countering raiders, but I guess that isn’t such a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 22, 2017 20:31:55 GMT -6
I avoid quad turrets just for the reason you specified, I can't tolerate losing 33% (or 50%!) of my firepower when a turret jams, which after 30 minutes of ranging fire usually seems to happen (by random odds) right when the slugging gets serious. 5 triples (late game) or 5 or 6 twins (mid game) is my preferred consignment. How do you get away with 5 triples? I can hardly do 4 triples without going for low speeds.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 19, 2017 14:35:03 GMT -6
The only CDF Dreadnought design I've ever built, because I didn't have superimposed B turret. Ended up being the most effective BB in the world for 10 years. Despite not even having directors, she maintained a hit rate of 8%, even at range. Didn't hurt that 10 barrels of 14" was the heaviest broadside afloat in that timeframe, either. Armor was very thin compared to my usual designs, but it worked well enough.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 8, 2017 19:33:42 GMT -6
It was quite useless the way the AI used it. Ran it facefirst into a squadron of battleships with 16" guns. I very much doubt that any battlecruiser would have done much of anything particularly useful had it been run into a squadron of battleships with 16" guns, no matter what its main battery armament looked like. One on many is not a good fight to take even with very heavily armed and armored ships, and it's an even worse fight to take when your opponents are more heavily armed and armored than you are. Not just one of them, a full class of them. 6 of them vs 4 BBs. Meanwhile, their own BB line ran at full speed away from the fight, which they should have won. Most of the AI designed BCs could have at least made that a tough fight, but not these.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 8, 2017 18:00:36 GMT -6
Those 3" turret tops make me nervous. I'd go with 5" or so. In 1905? Nothing can even come close to penetrating them for at least 8 years. I'll usually go up to 6"-7" when 16" guns start coming around, but for now even the best guns can't penetrate 2" deck.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 8, 2017 16:36:11 GMT -6
Making a class which is an incremental improvement over a preceding class and getting a discount on design costs for it is possible in Rule the Waves; right-click on a ship in service or under construction, click 'open design', and make changes within certain limits and you'll get a discount on the surcharge for the first ship of the new class. If I recall correctly, the limits are 100t/10%/1000t difference in design displacement, 1 knot in design speed, 1" in vertical and 0.5" in horizontal protection, and "some" changes to the secondary/tertiary batteries, but there will be a percentage and a class name in the "developed from class" line if you've made a sufficiently small change that the design still counts as being developed from an older class. I don't think that restricting the computer to designing classes which are mostly incremental improvements over preceding classes will help much, if at all; while you could get runs of 'good' designs if the computer chose well, you could also get runs of 'bad' designs when the computer chooses poorly, and you haven't changed anything that affects whether or not the computer will choose well when it decides it's time to start afresh. Also, I don't consider the battlecruiser that joebob73 posted to be useless. Use-impaired, yes, because a 2x2x15" main battery with a 12" belt isn't really enough to fight capital ships with about twice as many guns of a similar caliber unless said capital ships have much thinner armor, but it'd work well enough as a cruiser hunter-killer. I'd prefer something closer to the Alaska pattern than the Courageous pattern for a "large cruiser," but the Courageous pattern can work, especially if it's not crippled by historical levels of armor. It was quite useless the way the AI used it. Ran it facefirst into a squadron of battleships with 16" guns.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 8, 2017 16:34:57 GMT -6
This was my own BC designed around 1905. Of course, there was no extra weight when built, but it's 1950 in the game now. A little under-armored for my taste, but it was the best I could do. 13" was chosen because all my heavy guns were -1. Then I got superimposed B and 4 centerline, and decent 14" guns. All within a year of laying them down.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 8, 2017 14:27:20 GMT -6
Straight gun fight, on a foggy night in around 1935. By then I had removed the 7” secondaries entirely, as the 13” were accurate enough by around 1912 with a director refit. The 5” are enough to handle any DDs, so I usually throw them on when I do the engine refit. It doesn’t hurt that they’re always lucky ships, either. Exceptional hit rates and resistance to damage, which is surprising when I compare their results to much newer and definitely better ships. My CLs weren’t taking much flotation damage, but they keep getting their uptakes shot off, usually several times per battle, knocking them down to cruise speed as their maximum. So I decided that overkill was the way to fix that. It doesn’t entirely replace the standard 6” gun CLs, but they do their job well. There's no such thing as 'always lucky'; if they always work well then it must indicate there's something that makes them work. My guess would be that the exceptional hit rates are, perhaps counter-intuitively, due to their age; over the course of so many engagements, they'll become elite very quickly. That might explain why they did so well against new 40 k ton battlecruisers; they were able to hit earlier and more often whereas the enemy crews suffered at night. Depending on which nation they were from, the enemy ships might also have suffered a base penalty to crew quality, which in my experience has been a massive factor; in my many fights against the Russians, it was typical for my ships (using very advanced fire control and gunnery training, mind you) to land scores of hits and receive none in return, and this was somewhat mystifying until I saw the 'crew quality -2' on one of the ship cards; it's due to their poor education, I believe. As for the CL - I'll have to give it a shot, perhaps modified for my preference for heavier armour. If you use these in conjunction with other, 6 inch gun CLs, what do you use each type for? I know "always lucky" doesn't exist, but it feels like they are. Maybe the AI is trying to fight them like normal CAs, which they aren't. Or maybe the way I do battles really works well for ships like them. I'll usually use my long-range 6" gun CLs for raiders, and the heavy gun CLs to attempt to counter raiders as well as in normal battles. Since the battle generator picks almost entirely based on ship class, I'll usually end up with a serious firepower advantage. These ships too can be refitted for higher speed, and if I add colonial service to them they can just sit on my colonies in the later game. Then, they get to intercept and sink raiders, and the overkill firepower is helpful here because it keeps them from taking any damage that requires repair, so I don't have tonnage shortfalls due to repair time.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 8, 2017 12:30:02 GMT -6
I found a few more unusual designs. Since when is this a BB? I thought BB required more than 4 main guns. When everyone else is building BC with a minimum of 10 14" in 1922, this is a deathtrap. I wonder if the BB designation is due to the armor in the former, and the BC designation due to speed in the latter? That's one problem with the classification criteria some of the edge cases produce oddities when you push what you would normally think to be a pre-dreadnought across some of the criteria borders where the classes are not firmly defined by something like displacement. The second was quite firmly a BC, but horribly under-armed. The AI should *not* be building something that weak at the same time as other, significantly more effective, designs.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 8, 2017 12:08:52 GMT -6
Thanks for the input everyone! This gives me some food for thought when fine tuning the AI design routines for RTW2, which is now BTW coming along nicely. I found a few more unusual designs. Since when is this a BB? I thought BB required more than 4 main guns. When everyone else is building BC with a minimum of 10 14" in 1922, this is a deathtrap.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 6, 2017 21:44:19 GMT -6
As noted earlier, rebuild was about 1/4 the cost of a similar BC. 7” guns was for maximum firepower at close range, because I could not fit a useful number of well armored 8” guns. The main reason for these ships is their massive 13” main battery, which when upgraded to +0/1 allow them to be a threat to even BCs that can catch them. In one battle 6 of them and a barely larger BC got ambushed by 4 BC and a BB all around 40k tons. They took no losses and took down all but one of the BCs. 8” CL is mostly intended for overkill, because I was having a lot of more typical 6” gun CLs take too much damage in duels against enemy CLs near the start of the game. Especially when the AI actually had 2 or even 3 CLs to my one, due to bad luck. That's an impressive feat indeed, even despite the 13 inch guns. Was it the 13 inch guns or the secondaries that killed the enemy BCs? As for the CL - if your CLs are simply taking too much damage (rather than being unable to dish enough out) it might be worth switching round the armour scheme. No doubt, 2 inches of deck armour will keep the top sides pretty much proofed against enemy CLs for the rest of the game - probably pretty safe against enemy CAs too - even the heavy cruisers of the 1930s sometimes didn't go that heavy (Mogami, for example, had 1.5 inches.) Switching it round so that you've got 3 inches of belt armour and 1 - 1.5 inches on the deck could keep them safer while eliminating the need for 'overkill' in the armament. However, I think that heavier - than - usual armour is probably the defining feature of CLs, so my advice may be excessive. The Conquest class really exemplifies my typical early game cruiser philosophy. In this game, I never made a CL with less than 3 inches on the belt, but I also never lost one in battle. EDIT: I just scrolled up to check - the Conquest class, which served actively into the 1920s and fought in many engagements between them, only had one inch of deck armour, and never needed any more. The worst experience one of those ever had was receiving moderate damage against a more modern enemy cruiser - in almost all other engagements, they barely sustained any damage at all. Straight gun fight, on a foggy night in around 1935. By then I had removed the 7” secondaries entirely, as the 13” were accurate enough by around 1912 with a director refit. The 5” are enough to handle any DDs, so I usually throw them on when I do the engine refit. It doesn’t hurt that they’re always lucky ships, either. Exceptional hit rates and resistance to damage, which is surprising when I compare their results to much newer and definitely better ships. My CLs weren’t taking much flotation damage, but they keep getting their uptakes shot off, usually several times per battle, knocking them down to cruise speed as their maximum. So I decided that overkill was the way to fix that. It doesn’t entirely replace the standard 6” gun CLs, but they do their job well.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 6, 2017 18:12:57 GMT -6
About how much does that reconstruction cost? A mid-1910s ~16,000t ~28kn battlecruiser with similar armor and armament and likely better torpedo protection is only going to cost around 60 million total, though with a 29 month (before modifiers) construction time, and depending on what exactly you've developed you might be able to get something considerably better on the same tonnage at a similar cost. I think it was around 2m for 7 months each. So about 14m total. And since they are CA, not BC, they have less maintenance cost and most importantly do not get attached to Heavy BCs in squadrons. In the way of legacy ships, I have a few suggestions. Highly effective, especially after a refit to get them up to 28 knots, and replace the 7" casemates with lightly-armored 5" dual turrets. I have never actually lost one, even in battle against heavy BC/BB. This is about what a refit version looks like. I also found out that the game files keep count of battles even after it stops displaying more stars, she had 30! when the game ended in 1950. Main downside is the very high cost, but that isn't too much of an issue if you keep out of war with a major power while building up your fleet after start. Another interesting possibility, an 8" armed legacy CL. 23 knots allows it to catch any other legacy cruiser, and it has a very large broadside to use when it gets in range. Thanks for the suggestions. Regarding the first design - I presume that getting her from 22 knots to 28 would require the replacement of coal fired engines with oil ones as well as the replacement of all machinery. Roughly how much do you think the rebuild would cost? I remember that in this game, attempting to do something like that for Spartiate and Europa, which started out at a respectable 25 knots, was too expensive. Also - I've never used 7 inch guns, because I always figured it was either worth taking the better accuracy against light ships of 6 inch guns or better damage output of 8 inch guns. What's your rationale for using them? Another thing to consider - this thing weighed in at 16,000 tons. Spartiate, shown in this thread, weighed 18,000 tons, with a uniform main battery of 12 x 10 inch guns and a 25 knot top speed. She was commissioned in 1905, but other super-cruiser designs - such as early 'battlecruisers' with a heavy secondary battery in single or double turrets - can be made even earlier. If you're going to keep such ships around until the end of the game, why not wait a few years and build something more capable? Having said all that, with 30 battle stars, those things must be getting something right! The 8 inch protected cruiser is interesting, and certainly a novel idea I've never seen before. Certainly well optimised for cruiser engagements, I imagine - and I had an awful lot of those in this game, even in Northern Europe where the battle fleets were concentrated. It isn't well suited for the commerce protection role, with its medium range, un-specialised engines, and heavy armament (which is hardly a drawback per se, but I think it's overkill considering the main enemies of a commerce protection cruiser will be light raiders, and the 8 inch guns won't cut it against CAs until AP gets good later in the game.) What's its intended role? As noted earlier, rebuild was about 1/4 the cost of a similar BC. 7” guns was for maximum firepower at close range, because I could not fit a useful number of well armored 8” guns. The main reason for these ships is their massive 13” main battery, which when upgraded to +0/1 allow them to be a threat to even BCs that can catch them. In one battle 6 of them and a barely larger BC got ambushed by 4 BC and a BB all around 40k tons. They took no losses and took down all but one of the BCs. 8” CL is mostly intended for overkill, because I was having a lot of more typical 6” gun CLs take too much damage in duels against enemy CLs near the start of the game. Especially when the AI actually had 2 or even 3 CLs to my one, due to bad luck.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 6, 2017 16:24:44 GMT -6
That might be the most lengthy post I've ever read which included the phrase "in brief" , however I am very much looking forward to digesting this after work. *thumbs up* Thanks very much, I very much look forward to hearing what you have to say! In the way of legacy ships, I have a few suggestions. Highly effective, especially after a refit to get them up to 28 knots, and replace the 7" casemates with lightly-armored 5" dual turrets. I have never actually lost one, even in battle against heavy BC/BB. This is about what a refit version looks like. I also found out that the game files keep count of battles even after it stops displaying more stars, she had 30! when the game ended in 1950. Main downside is the very high cost, but that isn't too much of an issue if you keep out of war with a major power while building up your fleet after start. Another interesting possibility, an 8" armed legacy CL. 23 knots allows it to catch any other legacy cruiser, and it has a very large broadside to use when it gets in range.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 5, 2017 16:21:50 GMT -6
So I was going through some screenshots, and found a highly unusual bug. One of my cruisers had a "Torpedo magazine hit. Ship blows up!" entry in its log, but then was still afloat and did things afterward.
Unfortunately, that file is long gone now.
|
|