|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 5, 2017 16:20:02 GMT -6
I've got a couple of them. British BB built sometime around 1920, severely overgunned. Another unusual British BB, this time the smallest BB in the world when it was launched in 1926. And finally a Russian CA with battleship-grade armor, but extremely poor firepower compared to any foreign counterpart, even significantly smaller cruisers. Checked on the AI deigns routines and the Pervenets. Agree it is a bit over-armored. The AI should normally keep belt armor less than main armament calibre in its designs. I don't really know how the computer came up with the Pervenets design, but considering the odd designs that did get built in reality, I do not think it is all that strange. Thanks for the input though! Could it possibly be a reaction to me having very heavily armed CAs? I know the AI is supposed to react somewhat to player ship design, and this particular game I did make some highly unusual construction choices. Such as not building any battleships (B or BB) the entire game.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 4, 2017 13:51:59 GMT -6
I don't think that the Magnificent is too unreasonable, especially if Great Britain was having financial difficulties or if it was going for numbers over quality. I often limit my own capital ships to no more than about 30-35 thousand tons if I'm on a tight budget within the game, and while I'd prefer a smaller number of heavier guns a dozen 13" guns ought to offer a fairly comparable broadside to eight 15" guns. Every other capital ship they had was 40k tons or larger, with a minimum of 10 15" guns. And then they go and build this thing.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Dec 4, 2017 12:27:09 GMT -6
Observations: - I'm pretty impressed so far with the AI, particularly the tactical one. We've all seen really interesting games that were somewhat ruined by an idiotic or easily exploitable AI. I don't quite find that here...or at least, only modestly so. The battle AI seems to act in a reasonably rational manner...it presses when stronger, evades if weaker, and seems to do an adequate job of target prioritization. The campaign AI also seems logical (if predictable) in force structure composition and allocation. If there's a weak spot, it would have to be in ship design...the AI does build some rather funky and unnecessarily weak or un-balanced vessels. Thanks for the feedback! If you (or other players) could provide examples of said funky or unbalanced vessels it might be possible to adjust that in RTW2. Not necessarily examples of the ships themselves, but more on the type of funkiness or unbalancedeness. I've got a couple of them. British BB built sometime around 1920, severely overgunned. Another unusual British BB, this time the smallest BB in the world when it was launched in 1926. And finally a Russian CA with battleship-grade armor, but extremely poor firepower compared to any foreign counterpart, even significantly smaller cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Nov 22, 2017 13:33:47 GMT -6
Interesting; I didn't realize that, though it seems to me that with a 22-23kn speed restriction there would only be a very short window of time in which such a cruiser was useful or worth building, at least in a standard research game. Not that I'd really consider the 10,000t version to be all that much better off in regards to the window of time in which building it makes any kind of sense despite its lack of a speed limit before being reclassified to some other type of ship. It is really just interesting from a design rules perspective. The 11" or 12" armed AC is just useful in a early game niche role. Thus they should only be legacy or under construction at game start. I consistently get good showings from 13" gun ACs well into late game, as long as I give them a refit.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Sept 6, 2017 14:19:09 GMT -6
MS: Every 8-9 years to keep them from going obsolete during a war
DD: Might get better FCS if over 1.1k tons, otherwise just blank rebuild because they're only useful to pad the ASW/CP counter.
CL: If they can make at least 29 knots with an engine rebuild, they'll get one, and serve for the rest of the game as raiders/patrol ships. Improved FCS or deck-mounted torpedoes also. Otherwise, usually scrapped as soon as I can lay down replacements.
CA: I build them to where they last basically forever, with an engine rebuild to take them to 28 knot speed, improved FCS as it is developed, and a re-gunning once I get +1 guns in their caliber. Doesn't hurt that 16k ton legacy CAs can be well armored and equipped with 13" guns, making them effectively proto-BCs when laid down.
BC: Early BCs get a full rebuild into *very* fast raider hunters, usually capable of 31-32 knots. They would just be dead weight in a fleet battle, but tear through enemy cruisers just as well as my CAs, and cost less to refit than a new-build CA would take. Later "heavy" BCs get a full rebuild as well, which is significantly cheaper than a new-build, even with engine and gun replacement.
BB: The first dreadnoughts tend to be very compromised designs, but since they cannot be raider hunters, are usually scrapped soon after better ones are available. Once they start getting to 14" guns and ~40k tons, they get refit and used for the rest of the game.
B: Typically scrapped once I build up a proper battle line of dreadnoughts, but sometimes get preserved if they do something amazing, like the one I had which won a 3-on-1 battle against its British counterparts.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Sept 3, 2017 14:23:13 GMT -6
Not sure - the AI is an AI and building times are long, so building ships in response to something another power is doing will usually be a losing game. It has been truly said that in RtW you can take almost any strategy and pursue it to victory, so I prefer to set up my standards and build to that. If the AI tries to counter me, I'm usually farther down the tech tree anyway. I can't see armoring a CA to that extent, though (8" belt). My CL designs tend to be armored better than AI designs (3-3.5" belt instead of 2") but my CA designs rarely exceed 5-6" on the belt. After 1918 or so, it is virtually impossible to armor a cruiser effectively against expected shellfire. Better damage-control techs and moderate armor work better for me - more tonnage for speed and guns (good grief, I sound like Jackie Fisher). My chief complaint is that the AI goes 'battlecruiser crazy" and builds 2-3 BCs for every BB. My other complaint is the lack of late-game fleet actions. When the AIs are cranking out designs like that Russian CA I posted earlier with 10" of belt armor, sanity has already left the building. The other reason for my designs' heavy armor is to help them survive a hit or two from enemy capital ships if they get caught out of position while I'm trying to keep them out of a BB/BC brawl. Normally, yes, building ships to counter the enemy is a losing game, but when everyone has a lot of such unusual ships, a purpose-built counter can be very effective.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Sept 3, 2017 14:00:02 GMT -6
What I don;t hear is an account of how often these supercruisers actually get used, as opposed to building them for colonial service and/or prestige. Well, mine got used an awful lot. My Charles' design debuted in the early 40's, and I would say they appeared in... 6? scenarios by game end. My last game, where I feel I built them too soon and then they were a knot slow also, took the waves in the mid 20's and all 8 were still with me in 1950. All 8 were my SEA squadron (plus a dozen DDs), which as the Dutch against FR/US/JP meant they were used a Lot. Bombardment and response, coastal raid and response, raider interception, convoy attack and defense, I am sure they appeared in over a dozen scenarios by game end. I have no complaint about how frequently they were called upon, money well spent. I agree, mine see a LOT of action. Playing as the USA, it is easy to guarantee complete superiority in capital ships by the 20s, so the AI tends to decline large fleet actions. So most of my battles end up being convoy attack/defense or cruiser actions, at which supercruisers excel. I also prefer building them in my legacy fleet in place of Bs, simply because they remain useful all game while Bs tend to become obsolete and end up scrapped. ' Meanwhile a good legacy CA can go from this to this by the endgame. 27! battle stars, discovered through a look in the save file after game end. This is a pretty standard one for me, it is usually quite effective at killing other cruisers, while rarely encountering enemy BCs. If they are encountered, the 31 knot speed is usually sufficient to escape, especially at night or close to. In many playthroughs though, the AI starts armoring up its own CAs to the point where 10" are not effective enough, such as this cruiser from Russia So I reacted with a special purpose CA design, which was built much like my 12*10" gun cruiser, but then refit into this. Significantly cheaper than a BC, especially the large ones I favor, but capable of sinking any ship that could catch it, even a few of the AIs battlecruisers because it was usually two of them vs one BC.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Sept 3, 2017 0:06:13 GMT -6
joebob73 - I wouldn't say that I only build light BCs. In that last game I went to a 27-knot battleline speed and had about 15 capable of that. My big BCs weren't getting called on for battle (12x14" and 9x15") so I went with a fast, lighter-tonnage and lightly-armed ship for the next build. They did see action against big European BCs and they worked out just fine - what they couldn't shell into submission they could outrun. For myself I only run on RA mode - for all that I sometimes scream invective at the AI, it is more true to life. Interesting. What is it that I'm doing that you aren't, or vice versa, that's causing all of these crazy AI designs I see? Like the proliferation of BCs armed with 12 14" guns and 33 knot speed, or their CAs with over 8" of belt armor.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Sept 2, 2017 21:01:22 GMT -6
I've actually noticed that 10" guns are very effective on cruisers, to the point where I don't even bother building CAs with 8" or 9" guns. Sometimes the AI likes to up-armor its ships, and 8" guns start having penetration issues against that. Some games, the armor they put on CAs gets so thick that even 10" can't reliably penetrate, so I designed a class of cruisers capable of taking dual 13" guns in a refit from triple 10". That ended up working, because no armor that can be reasonably put on a cruiser has a chance against 13" AP. Loading a decent portion of SAP shells for 10" or 13" gun cruisers made them significantly more effective, sometimes sinking the lighter enemy CAs in 4-5 hits from the 13". Hmmm. I would say you are probably right. I was thinking that CA's were limited to 6.5 inches of belt armor but maybe that's either an early game thing (where I build most of my CA's) or maybe I'm just wrong altogether. I just designed an 8 inch belt for a CA in my current game in 1909 and the game didn't try to kick it up to a B. 8 inch guns definitely wouldn't deal with those cruisers that recently got posted above but director is right. Those are Alaska/ B-65 style cruisers that blur the line and more importantly, the cost, of true battlecruisers. When I build CA's in the late game I'm looking for something that fills the gap cost wise between large light cruisers and my fast battleship style BC's. Preferably on the lower end of the scale so I can have more light cruiser killers without crippling my budget to build capital ships. 8 inch guns will definitely fit the role I intend for them. I guess I would have to designate battlecruisers to deal with those CA's above if they started wrecking my smaller CA's overseas or whatever. It's an interesting strategic choice. Building ships like mine also kind of fucks with the AI, because when it sees you building a lot of CAs it slows down the clone-BB spam somewhat. Really only the US can get away with building them, due to the MASSIVE amounts of money you get thrown at you after 1910-ish. The main reason I built them was to clean out the massive CA count that the AI was building up without being at too much risk themselves. Didn't hurt that they were around half the cost of one of my heavy BB/BC designs, which is usually all I build once I get 52k ton docks. director I also run on captain's mode with support forces disabled. So I get control of all of my ships, and can coordinate them pretty well. Also, the AI in my games tends to make BCs just as large as their BBs, so if I made the lighter BCs that you get so much use out of, I would lose them really quickly for no use at all. My commerce raiders tend to be CLs, because 2 fast CLs costs about as much as a single CA, and they can actually outrun the 32-33 knot derp-BCs that I usually have to fight. In my early game, that 4 13" gun CA is the backbone of my fleet, mostly because I can refit them to be actually useful late-game, while the early Bs just can't handle it even with upgrades. And I've had the opposite experience with caliber, the heavy ships with larger numbers of small guns tend to not be able to mount enough turret armor or deck armor for how I use them. Meanwhile, hit rates for both 12*14 and 8*16 tend to be similar enough that I prefer the heavier shells of the 16".
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Sept 2, 2017 12:51:55 GMT -6
joebob73 - maybe so, but I find that aggressive use of CAs and BCs tends to get them swamped under battle-line fire. Yes, that tends to happen. I find that getting the best use out of them requires leaving them trailing my own battle-line to provide support fire. But sometimes, when you get *just* the right scenario, things can happen. 6 of and a slightly larger version with 32 knot speed, 22k tons, 10" belt for my BC against 4 40k+ ton BCs and a monster 50k ton BB, all armed with 10 15-16" guns. Ran into them in the fog, my battlecruiser got its ass shot off in the first 5 minutes. Then the CA squadron, all legacy ships, proceeded to sink 4/5 British heavy combatants.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Sept 2, 2017 12:41:42 GMT -6
I think I'm missing the point. Early on, I get very good use of armored cruisers - I've even sunk battleships with them. And if I can get a couple laid down with cross-firing wing turrets, 8" or 10", I can refit them with better engines later on and squeeze 30 years of life out of them. But very soon the focus shifts to battlecruiser and light cruiser actions with an occasional fleet scramble. If I spend my money on CAs then they end up not seeing much action - if overseas, they are not called upon and if at home they are AI-run independent divisions that contribute, frankly, very little other than forcing the enemy to use up shells and forcing me to repair them. It is only in the post-1925 period that I have the money and interest to build more CAs, and then they almost never get into action. At one point I tried not building any CLs, but the mission generator doesn't step up to CAs or BCs but down to DDs instead. So... CAs are cool, and I get that. I love them! But I end up making lots of designs that never see construction, or building ships that never see action. Of course, I never ever have accepted any treaty limitation other than "discuss and don't commit", so perhaps that's why. I'm always building capital ships and I can't bear to scrap them. That's the other reason I like my 13" gun CAs. If you get them in a fleet action, they can do useful damage to capital ships.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Sept 2, 2017 11:48:57 GMT -6
Is it me or does the late game AI when it does build CA's (usually in response to a couple I build of my own for experimental reasons) usually stick with 10 inch guns? Mine when I build them are usually 8x8" or 9x8" 14,000 ton early Baltimore types but the AI likes to stay at 10" guns (or move up to them if his early designs were 9 inch gunned ships. Maybe that's not a problem but it seems at first thought that the 10 inch gun is kind of a no-man's land caliber in the late game. It's over penetrating for light cruisers and heavy cruisers because of the limits on their armor thickness and probably not enough for penetrating late game battleships and battlecruisers. If those two hypotheses are true then 10 inch guns represent a waste of tonnage because 8 or 9 inch guns can do against a CL/CA and nothing they carry is going to work against a typical player BB/BC unless they get lucky and surprise one at close range at night or bad weather. I'd be interested to hear what others think. I actually agree with you B-coop. In my example on top, and apparently joebob73 's game, if the world is flooded with 13200 ton 12x9's or 9x10's then you pretty much need a 10. However in my current game, having fallen in love with the super-heavy cruiser in the OP I tried to make it too early, and since it was UN-lucky and was SLOW on trials can only 26 knots. This is terrible. What's even more terrible was my decision to go ahead with the design during a treaty period. Now I have 6 of them, and every action I am flirting around at the edge of sighting range for half the scenario trying to guess UI ships IDs by their behavior because if they're going to run away from a 29 knot fast BB they will need every bit of 30,000 yard's head start to make it to dusk. If I am in love with 15 guns (and I am), 8.1" guns would have been better, I bet the ship might have been 2 knots faster. "I assume these were built after the treaty expired, to counter the masses of cruisers built while the treaty was in force?" Correct director , as soon as the treaty lapsed I started building the Charles' to deal with the 140+ heavy cruisers in the world through quality over quantity. In my current game though I tried to build it in 1920 as a 20,000 ton treaty ship. Not enough tonnage for 1920. I should have built CL's. The issue I was having wasn't enemy CA gun caliber, but the sheer amount of armor they were using. 10" guns just weren't reliable at any kind of sane combat range. My ships could still handle them, but even a ship such as this one often took unacceptable levels of damage in the process. So I went and added more gun, like so 8 months of refit later, and I had a ship that would blow their CAs out of the water, usually not taking any hits in return.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Sept 2, 2017 8:53:42 GMT -6
Is it me or does the late game AI when it does build CA's (usually in response to a couple I build of my own for experimental reasons) usually stick with 10 inch guns? Mine when I build them are usually 8x8" or 9x8" 14,000 ton early Baltimore types but the AI likes to stay at 10" guns (or move up to them if his early designs were 9 inch gunned ships. Maybe that's not a problem but it seems at first thought that the 10 inch gun is kind of a no-man's land caliber in the late game. It's over penetrating for light cruisers and heavy cruisers because of the limits on their armor thickness and probably not enough for penetrating late game battleships and battlecruisers. If those two hypotheses are true then 10 inch guns represent a waste of tonnage because 8 or 9 inch guns can do against a CL/CA and nothing they carry is going to work against a typical player BB/BC unless they get lucky and surprise one at close range at night or bad weather. I'd be interested to hear what others think. I've actually noticed that 10" guns are very effective on cruisers, to the point where I don't even bother building CAs with 8" or 9" guns. Sometimes the AI likes to up-armor its ships, and 8" guns start having penetration issues against that. Some games, the armor they put on CAs gets so thick that even 10" can't reliably penetrate, so I designed a class of cruisers capable of taking dual 13" guns in a refit from triple 10". That ended up working, because no armor that can be reasonably put on a cruiser has a chance against 13" AP. Loading a decent portion of SAP shells for 10" or 13" gun cruisers made them significantly more effective, sometimes sinking the lighter enemy CAs in 4-5 hits from the 13".
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Aug 27, 2017 1:52:10 GMT -6
That's impressive penetration for a 5" shell on a BB, and a stroke of fortune for sure! Also definitely apropos to "what goes around comes around." :] Think I should post my cruiser squadron sinking an entire battlecruiser division?
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Aug 26, 2017 13:31:58 GMT -6
This is actually the second time that DD disabled this BB's engines, the first had 2 consecutive crits that left her completely dead in the water. A nice reversal from how the AI usually lands all manner of engine disabling or speed lowering crits.
|
|