imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Jan 9, 2019 4:47:35 GMT -6
Back on the subject of armour values, it would be nice if we could see the derived values in the ship design screen. what i mean is that the existing value could be renamed to something like "protection value" and an additional box added that displayed the actual armour thickness you would get, adjusted for available tech advances. I think this would be great for those of us who try to create copies of real ships in game.
There was some talk about AoN armour earlier, with the implication that it was somehow some sort of "best" armour (an attitude that seems to be built into the game too). That annoys me a bit because in real life it was just a theory that was never really tested in the only way that matters. There were very few instances of US AoN ships engaging enemy battleships, and none of them were fought to a conclusion. In the engagements that did take place the enemy ships without AoN didn't really do any worse than the US ships.
In contrast other armour design philosophy's were tested, particularly the Germans "turtleback" scheme, and found to be very effective.
I have nothing against AoN armour design, I just don't like the way its presented as some sort of "Ultimate" armour upgrade.
Off topic I understand and agree with the way research has been implemented, but I would like it if the 10% budget cap was raised (or removed) during wartime to allow for accelerated R&D. I think this would better reflect how things work in the real world.
On the subject of game AI (also off topic, but this thread has gone a lot of different ways) I find the AI in RTW1 infuriating. As an example, in my USA campaign I was at war with France and I sent a fleet to North Europe. I was allied with GB at the time but annoyingly the game does not allow me to use GB basing so my fleet is unsupported. Despite the fact that they have more capital ships that me the French don't fight for 4 turns. During this time I lose 2 BB and a BC to mines and torpedo events - they are not sunk, just damaged and force to enter a neutral port where they are interned. That is utterly ridiculous! I am allied to GB so I have friendly ports available, but whatever! On the 5th turn the French come out for a fleet engagement. When the scenario opens I literally can't believe my eyes! Both sides have their entire force, but my force has been set up in the most disadvantageous way possible. I have 6 BB in two divisions in my main force (ok so far) but my scout force only has 2 of my 5 BC's in it and the force itself is situated off to the port side of my axis of advance and parallel with my main force. The remaining 3 BC's are in an Independent force (meaning I have no control over them at Admiral level) placed out in front where the scout force should have been. My 5 BC's are actually 2 different classes of ship 2 are older 27 knot ships and the other 3 are newer 30 knot ships. The AI has put the 2 older ships and one of the newer ships in the independent force, meaning the faster ship is gimped by the older ones. The scenario starts with good visibility but just 20 minutes until twilight.
The AI has put the entire French fleet directly to my front and broadside on to me. Their scout force of 17 BC's are about 5,000 yards from my independent force, and their battle line is about 10,000 yards beyond. Surface detection range is 21,000 yards, but apparently my entire fleet was fast asleep.
When I hit the start button my lead BC in the independent squadron (which of course was the more modern BC) was pounded to scrap. I think the actual weight of the shells landing on it drove it straight down to the sea bed. I scrambled to get my under control formations into the battle and extricate the independent formation but the French fleet just sailed off into the twilight and headed into port. I lost 1 BC sunk and 2 heavily damaged (so interned and lost to me as well) the French took almost no damage at all. They got something like 20k vp out of what was effectively a mugging, executed by the game AI giving itself every possible advantage.
This game desperately needs a way for the player to set up his own force before the scenario starts, even if it is just an organisation chart where we can drag and drop ships into slots, and for the love of god please put some limits on just haw badly the AI can screw us when setting up scenarios. At least prevent the AI from placing any enemy forces inside maximum spotting range.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 9, 2019 6:01:10 GMT -6
Back on the subject of armour values, it would be nice if we could see the derived values in the ship design screen. what i mean is that the existing value could be renamed to something like "protection value" and an additional box added that displayed the actual armour thickness you would get, adjusted for available tech advances. I think this would be great for those of us who try to create copies of real ships in game. There was some talk about AoN armour earlier, with the implication that it was somehow some sort of "best" armour (an attitude that seems to be built into the game too). That annoys me a bit because in real life it was just a theory that was never really tested in the only way that matters. There were very few instances of US AoN ships engaging enemy battleships, and none of them were fought to a conclusion. In the engagements that did take place the enemy ships without AoN didn't really do any worse than the US ships. In contrast other armour design philosophy's were tested, particularly the Germans "turtleback" scheme, and found to be very effective. I have nothing against AoN armour design, I just don't like the way its presented as some sort of "Ultimate" armour upgrade. Off topic I understand and agree with the way research has been implemented, but I would like it if the 10% budget cap was raised (or removed) during wartime to allow for accelerated R&D. I think this would better reflect how things work in the real world. On the subject of game AI (also off topic, but this thread has gone a lot of different ways) I find the AI in RTW1 infuriating. As an example, in my USA campaign I was at war with France and I sent a fleet to North Europe. I was allied with GB at the time but annoyingly the game does not allow me to use GB basing so my fleet is unsupported. Despite the fact that they have more capital ships that me the French don't fight for 4 turns. During this time I lose 2 BB and a BC to mines and torpedo events - they are not sunk, just damaged and force to enter a neutral port where they are interned. That is utterly ridiculous! I am allied to GB so I have friendly ports available, but whatever! On the 5th turn the French come out for a fleet engagement. When the scenario opens I literally can't believe my eyes! Both sides have their entire force, but my force has been set up in the most disadvantageous way possible. I have 6 BB in two divisions in my main force (ok so far) but my scout force only has 2 of my 5 BC's in it and the force itself is situated off to the port side of my axis of advance and parallel with my main force. The remaining 3 BC's are in an Independent force (meaning I have no control over them at Admiral level) placed out in front where the scout force should have been. My 5 BC's are actually 2 different classes of ship 2 are older 27 knot ships and the other 3 are newer 30 knot ships. The AI has put the 2 older ships and one of the newer ships in the independent force, meaning the faster ship is gimped by the older ones. The scenario starts with good visibility but just 20 minutes until twilight. The AI has put the entire French fleet directly to my front and broadside on to me. Their scout force of 17 BC's are about 5,000 yards from my independent force, and their battle line is about 10,000 yards beyond. Surface detection range is 21,000 yards, but apparently my entire fleet was fast asleep. When I hit the start button my lead BC in the independent squadron (which of course was the more modern BC) was pounded to scrap. I think the actual weight of the shells landing on it drove it straight down to the sea bed. I scrambled to get my under control formations into the battle and extricate the independent formation but the French fleet just sailed off into the twilight and headed into port. I lost 1 BC sunk and 2 heavily damaged (so interned and lost to me as well) the French took almost no damage at all. They got something like 20k vp out of what was effectively a mugging, executed by the game AI giving itself every possible advantage. This game desperately needs a way for the player to set up his own force before the scenario starts, even if it is just an organisation chart where we can drag and drop ships into slots, and for the love of god please put some limits on just haw badly the AI can screw us when setting up scenarios. At least prevent the AI from placing any enemy forces inside maximum spotting range. Welcome to the forum.
Relating to AoN armor scheme in RTW I think it is not as effective as you mentioned. It has effect that if you do not penetrate citadel (main belt and deck armor) you cannot sink ship however this does not mean the ship is invincible. You can destroy infrastructure decreasing effectivness of ship considerably, especially if you know out bridge/conning tower/fire control positions. You can disable ship by destroying turrets. You can compare it with Bismarck as she was wreck even if her citadel was not penetrated. In RTW there is time about 5-10 years when AoN has advantage as ship without AoN before that time even if their main belt and deck armor was not penetrated were able to sink by demolishing extended part of ships. However as time progress penetartion of guns increased and practically no armor can make ship impenetrable. In this time turtle back armor has again his advantage as sloped part of deck armor increase protection from shorter ranges and hits to belt armor.
Relating to your example as USN Admiral the game similates all the difficulties real admiral in history had. It similates that not best ships are always possible to have as ships need regular maintenance. In these time radar did not exist so it was common that you do not now where enemy is and when there is first contact you or your enemy could be in disadvantage position.
Relating to your alliance with UK it is strage, could you put save on this forum (just zip your Game folder under saves).
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Jan 9, 2019 6:50:41 GMT -6
Back on the subject of armour values, it would be nice if we could see the derived values in the ship design screen. what i mean is that the existing value could be renamed to something like "protection value" and an additional box added that displayed the actual armour thickness you would get, adjusted for available tech advances. I think this would be great for those of us who try to create copies of real ships in game. There was some talk about AoN armour earlier, with the implication that it was somehow some sort of "best" armour (an attitude that seems to be built into the game too). That annoys me a bit because in real life it was just a theory that was never really tested in the only way that matters. There were very few instances of US AoN ships engaging enemy battleships, and none of them were fought to a conclusion. In the engagements that did take place the enemy ships without AoN didn't really do any worse than the US ships. In contrast other armour design philosophy's were tested, particularly the Germans "turtleback" scheme, and found to be very effective. I have nothing against AoN armour design, I just don't like the way its presented as some sort of "Ultimate" armour upgrade. Off topic I understand and agree with the way research has been implemented, but I would like it if the 10% budget cap was raised (or removed) during wartime to allow for accelerated R&D. I think this would better reflect how things work in the real world. On the subject of game AI (also off topic, but this thread has gone a lot of different ways) I find the AI in RTW1 infuriating. As an example, in my USA campaign I was at war with France and I sent a fleet to North Europe. I was allied with GB at the time but annoyingly the game does not allow me to use GB basing so my fleet is unsupported. Despite the fact that they have more capital ships that me the French don't fight for 4 turns. During this time I lose 2 BB and a BC to mines and torpedo events - they are not sunk, just damaged and force to enter a neutral port where they are interned. That is utterly ridiculous! I am allied to GB so I have friendly ports available, but whatever! On the 5th turn the French come out for a fleet engagement. When the scenario opens I literally can't believe my eyes! Both sides have their entire force, but my force has been set up in the most disadvantageous way possible. I have 6 BB in two divisions in my main force (ok so far) but my scout force only has 2 of my 5 BC's in it and the force itself is situated off to the port side of my axis of advance and parallel with my main force. The remaining 3 BC's are in an Independent force (meaning I have no control over them at Admiral level) placed out in front where the scout force should have been. My 5 BC's are actually 2 different classes of ship 2 are older 27 knot ships and the other 3 are newer 30 knot ships. The AI has put the 2 older ships and one of the newer ships in the independent force, meaning the faster ship is gimped by the older ones. The scenario starts with good visibility but just 20 minutes until twilight. The AI has put the entire French fleet directly to my front and broadside on to me. Their scout force of 17 BC's are about 5,000 yards from my independent force, and their battle line is about 10,000 yards beyond. Surface detection range is 21,000 yards, but apparently my entire fleet was fast asleep. When I hit the start button my lead BC in the independent squadron (which of course was the more modern BC) was pounded to scrap. I think the actual weight of the shells landing on it drove it straight down to the sea bed. I scrambled to get my under control formations into the battle and extricate the independent formation but the French fleet just sailed off into the twilight and headed into port. I lost 1 BC sunk and 2 heavily damaged (so interned and lost to me as well) the French took almost no damage at all. They got something like 20k vp out of what was effectively a mugging, executed by the game AI giving itself every possible advantage. This game desperately needs a way for the player to set up his own force before the scenario starts, even if it is just an organisation chart where we can drag and drop ships into slots, and for the love of god please put some limits on just haw badly the AI can screw us when setting up scenarios. At least prevent the AI from placing any enemy forces inside maximum spotting range. Welcome to the forum.
Relating to AoN armor scheme in RTW I think it is not as effective as you mentioned. It has effect that if you do not penetrate citadel (main belt and deck armor) you cannot sink ship however this does not mean the ship is invincible. You can destroy infrastructure decreasing effectivness of ship considerably, especially if you know out bridge/conning tower/fire control positions. You can disable ship by destroying turrets. You can compare it with Bismarck as she was wreck even if her citadel was not penetrated. In RTW there is time about 5-10 years when AoN has advantage as ship without AoN before that time even if their main belt and deck armor was not penetrated were able to sink by demolishing extended part of ships. However as time progress penetartion of guns increased and practically no armor can make ship impenetrable. In this time turtle back armor has again his advantage as sloped part of deck armor increase protection from shorter ranges and hits to belt armor.
Relating to your example as USN Admiral the game similates all the difficulties real admiral in history had. It similates that not best ships are always possible to have as ships need regular maintenance. In these time radar did not exist so it was common that you do not now where enemy is and when there is first contact you or your enemy could be in disadvantage position.
Relating to your alliance with UK it is strage, could you put save on this forum (just zip your Game folder under saves).
Thank you for the welcome, and its good to be here. My point was not that the AoN armour scheme is particularly effective compared to other amour schemes. Historically there is very little evidence to evaluate its effectiveness one way or the other, but my personal opinion is that it would be less effective than conventional armour in a fleet engagement, Jutland style. Conversely, I am pretty sure that the guys who proposed and approved the design were pretty confident that the ships they were designing were not going to be faced with that kind of battle, and that the weight savings (and resultant speed increase) that AoN armour offered were a worthwhile trade off. Most importantly in the real world history proved them to be absolutely right. In RTW1 AoN armour seems to become available much earlier than it did historically and the ships that have it definitely are faced with Jutland style battles. In the battles we see in RTW1 an AoN ship is incredibly vulnerable; the unarmoured parts of the ship can be easily battered causing flooding and reducing speed; the maximum belt thickness available can be easily penetrated by 16" guns at the normal engagement ranges we see in scenarios; the superstructure and control systems on an AoN ship are just as vulnerable as on any other ship. To summarize, in RTW1 AoN armour offers no advantage over any other armour scheme, however it is presented as a "top of the tech tree" option with its own special check box in ship design. I feel that this special treatment is unwarranted and would prefer to see an armour scheme that actually did prove to be highly effective in the sort of engagements we get in RTW1 such as the turtleback scheme. All that said, RTW1 is the past and with RTW2 and the introduction of air power it is possible that we won't be seeing much BB on BB action and AoN armour might now justify its place at the top of the tech tree. The USN battle i described does not represent "difficulties" - there is no possible way for a force of nearly 30 capital ships along with all their screening elements to get to be 5,000 yards from my ships when the surface spotting range is 21,000 yards. I could accept the ridiculous way the AI set up my force, but setting up the enemy with a perfect "cross the T" shot at point blank range was inexcusable. The save game is gone - after that battle I resigned the campaign and have since overwritten the slot. RTW1 is a good game, but some things are just broken, in particular power projection without basing. For that reason I don't play USA or Japan any more. I don't use raiders either - I am tired of the AI trying to put them in scenarios and when I accept telling me that MY ships are not available and fining me more vp than a decline would have cost and also more than they can earn in 3 turns raiding (i.e. deploying raiders actually loses vp over time). what I do use is submarines - hundreds of submarines - because it is the only thing that you can do that actually gains you anything while you wait for the AI to give you a fleet battle which is winnable (I.E. not a mugging or a night battle). It isn't the way I want to play the game but it is the only way that the broken AI allows you to play; it's a pity it won't get fixed and I really hope the AI is better in RTW2 |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 9, 2019 8:59:21 GMT -6
imryn , my understanding is in RTW2 the displayed armor value will be the actual thickness of the plates and the effectiveness of plates for a given thickness will improve with technology level instead of the RTW1 system of the protection being the same for a given thickness and the required weight to achieve that protection going down with tech level improvements. The American AoN scheme was tested in WW2 with the exact scenario that critics said made the ships unnecessarily vulnerable with the ends of the ship unprotected against lighter caliber guns. USS Colorado was hit twenty-two times in about a fifteen minute time period by a 6 inch coastal artillery battery on Tinian while the battleship was providing shore support. Roughly forty men were killed and two hundred wounded but the battleship's ability to continue to provide support for the marines ashore was unaffected and the battleship stayed on station for another ten days before heading to rear areas for repairs. Add to that USS South Dakota's experience at Guadalcanal. The ship's superstructure took significant damage at close range which combined with its electrical troubles made it less than effective but the citadel's integrity was never seriously breached and it was never in any danger of sinking. Regarding its place in RTW1, USS Nevada, the first dreadnought to have the AoN scheme was laid down in late 1912. The AoN tech in RTW1 is a 1911 tech so it's available roughly on par with when the design of the Nevada-class was finalized prior to beginning construction. The AoN scheme was ahead of its time in that it was designed with long range gunfights in mind (probably longer than fire control and visual sighting systems were capable of reliably providing at the time). So in a short range fight, the turtleback design might be better at protecting the engine room and magazines since the deck provides some backup for the belt but less of the internal volume of the ship is protected. You are more likely to be rendered combat ineffective even if the engine rooms and magazines aren't directly penetrated and more likely to suffer progressive flooding. Bismarck might not have suffered a direct hit to the propulsion spaces or magazines but its guns were completely silenced within about 30 minutes and it was already sinking before the order was given to scuttle the ship.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Jan 10, 2019 3:33:28 GMT -6
imryn , my understanding is in RTW2 the displayed armor value will be the actual thickness of the plates and the effectiveness of plates for a given thickness will improve with technology level instead of the RTW1 system of the protection being the same for a given thickness and the required weight to achieve that protection going down with tech level improvements. The American AoN scheme was tested in WW2 with the exact scenario that critics said made the ships unnecessarily vulnerable with the ends of the ship unprotected against lighter caliber guns. USS Colorado was hit twenty-two times in about a fifteen minute time period by a 6 inch coastal artillery battery on Tinian while the battleship was providing shore support. Roughly forty men were killed and two hundred wounded but the battleship's ability to continue to provide support for the marines ashore was unaffected and the battleship stayed on station for another ten days before heading to rear areas for repairs. Add to that USS South Dakota's experience at Guadalcanal. The ship's superstructure took significant damage at close range which combined with its electrical troubles made it less than effective but the citadel's integrity was never seriously breached and it was never in any danger of sinking. Regarding its place in RTW1, USS Nevada, the first dreadnought to have the AoN scheme was laid down in late 1912. The AoN tech in RTW1 is a 1911 tech so it's available roughly on par with when the design of the Nevada-class was finalized prior to beginning construction. The AoN scheme was ahead of its time in that it was designed with long range gunfights in mind (probably longer than fire control and visual sighting systems were capable of reliably providing at the time). So in a short range fight, the turtleback design might be better at protecting the engine room and magazines since the deck provides some backup for the belt but less of the internal volume of the ship is protected. You are more likely to be rendered combat ineffective even if the engine rooms and magazines aren't directly penetrated and more likely to suffer progressive flooding. Bismarck might not have suffered a direct hit to the propulsion spaces or magazines but its guns were completely silenced within about 30 minutes and it was already sinking before the order was given to scuttle the ship. Thanks for the detailed response. I was not aware of the change in the way armour values will be displayed in RTW2, but I still think a dual display with both a notional "protection value" and the actual thickness would be a good idea. It would allow for comparison of designs from different campaigns without regard to differing tech developments, and allow the use of gun information in evaluating armour vs main battery performance. I am not sure but I don't think the gun information factors in armour tech development in the penetration values it gives us. I wasn't aware that AoN was introduced quite that early, but I think the examples you have given are actually better for my case than yours. Light gunfire should not be able to do significant damage to any BB that is sitting at anchor or steaming slowly along the coast as would be the case during coastal bombardment unless there was a lucky hit on a fire director or something of that nature. In fact a ship without an AoN armour scheme would probably take less damage under those circumstances. Your second example simply confirms that superstructure hits can quickly degrade a ships combat ability, but otherwise it was an inconclusive engagement. I agree that the AoN scheme was ahead of its time, and in the historical context it was almost prescient in the way it allowed the late war fast battleships to integrate with the fast carriers, but RTW doesn't work that way. In my experience there are no long range battles between battleships because of the way that the AI in RTW works. The moment an enemy ship switches from "identified" to "Unidentified" you stop shooting at him, so in order to keep your line of battle servicing targets you have to keep them solidly inside your spotting range, which means bringing them within 15,000 yards normally. It would be nice if you could do the spotting with scout elements, but even under manual control they are unreliable. Under the circumstances that pertain in the game the advantages that AoN offered historically just aren't relevant, whereas the advantages of the turtleback scheme are actually more relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jan 10, 2019 4:57:04 GMT -6
AON makes you somewhat more vulnerable to being mission-killed by light guns, but less likely to be sunk outright by an older capital ship that can't penetrate the thickest part of your belt, or even, possibly, by a heavy cruiser.
In the case of SoDak at Guadalcanal, her superstructure was chewed up and she was mission-killed, but none of Kirishima's main battery salvoes penetrated her citadel.
|
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Jan 10, 2019 9:59:29 GMT -6
AON makes you somewhat more vulnerable to being mission-killed by light guns, but less likely to be sunk outright by an older capital ship that can't penetrate the thickest part of your belt, or even, possibly, by a heavy cruiser. In the case of SoDak at Guadalcanal, her superstructure was chewed up and she was mission-killed, but none of Kirishima's main battery salvoes penetrated her citadel. My reply will also address imryn’s comment a bit. No capital ships have armored superstructures. They generally don’t have armored AA positions. And directors/radars/rangefinders will always be easy to knock out. So they can generally be roughed up by any caliber of gun, and can be for the most part mission killed, but that’s with ANY armor scheme, not just AON. In the case of Colorado, she was roughed up a bit, but wasn’t even a mission kill. And again, no armor scheme is going to protect a ships upperworks or exposed positions. SoDak is another case where no armor scheme is going to protect a ship’s superstructure from 6” and 8” shellfire. The only places where AON reduced armor were the bow and stern portions of the ship that weren’t critical to buoyancy. Previously they were only protected by enough armor to stop small caliber shellfire (and just enough to fuse AP shells). |
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jan 10, 2019 11:25:52 GMT -6
To add to the discussion on how AoN served South Dakota, she was also penetrated 3 times near/below the waterline in guandal canal. All of which are by 8in or smaller gun fired by japanese cruisers, however this caused negligible damage. What seriously affected South Dakota’s ability to fight is the power loss and jammed turret , neither of which can be effectively prevented by a full protection armour scheme.
Further the underwater penetrating hit from japanese diving ap shell are unlikely to be saved by a more extended main belt either. Thus, at least with regard to the engagement at guandal canal I don’t believe that the AoN scheme fared any worse than a comparable full protection armour scheme.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Jan 11, 2019 9:22:53 GMT -6
Thank you all for the responses, but I think you are all missing my point a bit here. Yes, AoN style ships were in combat, took some damage, and did well - specifically they certainly did as well as a conventionally armoured ship would have.
My point is that none of them was involved in an engagement that was fought to a conclusion - none of them fought in an engagement where either they sank or their opponent did. If the Bismark had been designed with an AoN armour scheme would it have lasted as long as the real one did? Personally I don't think so. Ignoring mission kills due to superstructure hits (because all battleships are equally susceptible to that) would AoN style ships have done as well in the battles fought in the North Atlantic and North Sea where engagement ranges were typically much shorter than the Pacific? Again, I don't think so.
Finally, in RTW scenarios where engagement ranges are short due to foibles of the game AI should AoN be superior to other armour schemes? No, I don't think it should
|
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 11, 2019 10:44:59 GMT -6
I don't see any reason why the game wouldn't consider AoN the most advanced. Most nations with the most notable exception of Germany went to that scheme and Bismarck itself is somewhat of a unique variation of it. There is only a narrow 60mm belt forward of the citadel to the bow and a narrow 80mm belt aft of it to the stern. Much less than a traditional distributed scheme like on the Queen Elizabeth-class. That armor seems mostly like wasted tonnage for all the good it would do (and did). The main difference with Bismarck as I understand it is the use of the turtleback deck. That made the ship's magazines and engineering spaces basically invulnerable at short range also left the ship with at least one deck less reserve buoyancy protected within the citadel. That was costly and ultimately contributed to its sinking. Also, a lot of important equipment was forced to be left outside of the protected volume and no doubt it contributed to how quickly Bismarck was silenced. I don't want to turn this into the n+1 argument about the Bismarck where n=infinity but the ship was silenced within 30 minutes of the beginning of its final battle. There is no reason to think that an AoN design on a similar tonnage with a greater volume of protected space wouldn't have done at least as well.
The North Atlantic and North Sea is a relatively small corner of the ocean. If you are not Germany then there is a good chance your ships are going to be fighting in areas quite different in temperament than there.
There is nothing requiring you to go to the AoN design in game. You're not wrong that in-game, many of the fights tend to be at short range which isn't really inconsistent with the time frame. That being said the future of battleship design was the AoN format. The game is just following along with that. If nothing else it will make it easy to transition from the WW1 time frame to the WW2 time frame in RTW2.
|
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 12, 2019 22:21:42 GMT -6
I'm with bcoop on this one: as soon as I can get AoN armor scheme, I go with it.
AoN armor was exactly what's listed on the tin: things that were vital to combat performance were protected to the maximum that tonnage allowed, and everything else got nothing. The reduction or elimination of belt ends, tops and lower edges permitted the belt - the mathematically most-probable hit-zone - to be thickened. The argument was so persuasive that, from USS Nevada on, almost every battleship in the world was built to that scheme.
It is possible in-game to build ships with turtlebacks and belt-end armor. I think you will find that those ship designs devote a lot of tonnage to spreading the armor around, whereas armoring the most likely and most vital places means the same tonnage of armor gives thicker protection at critical points. I'd suggest you play out a game using that armor scheme for your capital ships and then give us some feedback on what you find.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Jan 13, 2019 8:28:55 GMT -6
Rather that create issues where there don't need to be any, consider this:
Conning Tower
Citadel
Main Deck
Deck Extended
Main Belt
Belt Extended
If a ship has no armor on it's conning tower, it has a bit heavier citadel (bigger) and conning tower critical hits go to the citadel. No conning tower reduces top weight.
If the ship has no Deck Extended armor, the Main Deck gets a bit heavier and Deck Extended criticals go to the main deck.
If the ship has no Belt Extended armor, the main belt gets heavier and Belt extended criticals are part of the main belt.
AoN was a doctrine, not a technological innovation.
Better steel, more compact engines, better internal communication etc. had a lot to do with armor layout as well.
As technology got better, more effective compartmentalization reduced flotation damage. Well, not really the damage but how well the ship could cope with damage.
It is also a good thing to remember that fewer main turrets and main turrets arranged more compactly mean more effective armor distribution is possible. Six or Seven dual turrets allow for fine lines and good speed, but at a cost of protection. The American Standard Battleships were shorter and chunkier with 4 triple turrets. Not as fast, but better protected for the same weight.
Rodney was a butt-ugly ship, but a very effective one. The post-treaty French ships were an interesting choice as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 13, 2019 20:47:12 GMT -6
hardlec - I quite agree with your points. 'Dreadnought' would not have been buildable as-was without the technological advantage of turbines; triple expansion engines capable of driving her at 21 knots would, I think, have taken up too much tonnage. The ships rebuild in the 'Tween Wars period benefited tremendously from improvements in propulsion (especially high-pressure boilers); the space and tonnage freed was considerable. And it goes without saying that WW1-era armor was not as strong and capable as WW2-era armor and schemes. The modern French ships ('Dunkerque' and 'Richelieu') were able to devote record-setting percentages of tonnage to armor (40% if memory serves) because of advances in welded construction, lighter-weight-per-horsepower propulsion and so forth. If we look at the history of ironclad-to-steel navy battleship construction, we see a steady retreat in terms of amount of area covered and a concentration of armor on the critical points, from the full-crustal armor of the early seagoing ironclads to the final 'all or nothing' scheme. The latter was just, I think, a recognition of what was happening anyway, and a willingness to jump ahead on the trend. One might argue that modern warships, virtually unarmored in historical terms, are a continuation of this idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 14, 2019 3:06:58 GMT -6
hardlec - I quite agree with your points. 'Dreadnought' would not have been buildable as-was without the technological advantage of turbines; triple expansion engines capable of driving her at 21 knots would, I think, have taken up too much tonnage. The ships rebuild in the 'Tween Wars period benefited tremendously from improvements in propulsion (especially high-pressure boilers); the space and tonnage freed was considerable. And it goes without saying that WW1-era armor was not as strong and capable as WW2-era armor and schemes. The modern French ships ('Dunkerque' and 'Richelieu') were able to devote record-setting percentages of tonnage to armor (40% if memory serves) because of advances in welded construction, lighter-weight-per-horsepower propulsion and so forth. If we look at the history of ironclad-to-steel navy battleship construction, we see a steady retreat in terms of amount of area covered and a concentration of armor on the critical points, from the full-crustal armor of the early seagoing ironclads to the final 'all or nothing' scheme. The latter was just, I think, a recognition of what was happening anyway, and a willingness to jump ahead on the trend. One might argue that modern warships, virtually unarmored in historical terms, are a continuation of this idea. Issue was that penetration of guns was increasing, the 15" and 16" were standard. To protect against these guns you need a thick armor. And 13" (Queen Elizabeth class) or 13.5" (USN standard battleships) was not enough to protect ships completely against 15" and 16" guns.
It does not mean that it cannot give ships any protection as it is more complicated due to ships motion and angle from incoming shells but protection is still limited. So even very good research comming from penetration numbers need to be takes as penetration with ideal condition with ships firing side by side.
If you look on any naval combat between battleships, penetration of main armor or main belt from shellfire did not happen between modern battleships build from 30s. (at least I am not aware of it).
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Jan 14, 2019 5:34:45 GMT -6
This is a great discussion, and I am reading some great and well reasoned responses here!
I have been researching AoN armour and have come up with a couple of things. Firstly, there were no ships built that completely followed AoN principals. The US ships were closest but they implemented multiple redundant armoured decks to improve protection for crew, and other nations such as Britain and Germany followed the AoN principals at least partially. The point that Dorn made is perfectly true - as the ability of naval artillery to penetrate armour increased ship designers had to restrict the areas of the ship they gave maximum protection to as compensation, and the AoN design principals reflected the ultimate outcome of that tendency, however nobody (not even the US) ever got all the way there.
The main thing I am reading is that the most successful battleships historically were designed using the AoN principals and therefore it must be the best design. Historically the decline of the battleship starts at the end of WW1, not the middle of WW2. I say this because while the battleship remained the primary force in naval warfare after WW1 right into the late 30's they were never used and therefore their relative performances cannot be judged. By the time the battleship saw combat again its day was done and naval airpower was superseding it. In that historical context AoN battleships did very well and integrated with carrier forces very well in main because the AoN principals allowed them to save weight which could be used to give them more speed.
In RTW naval airpower doesn't exist. I question whether an AoN battleship can stand in a line of battle against "partial" AoN ships like Bismark or Rodney or KGV, particularly in the shorter range engagements that RTW forces us into.
I like the Idea of testing this in RTW. I have started a new campaign as Britain with the intention of running a slow tech development (10%) campaign through multiple date resets to see if I can conquer the world - now I am going to accept the limitation of not using AoN armour at all, and see how it goes.
|
|
