|
Post by dorn on Dec 19, 2018 16:39:23 GMT -6
I woud like to discuss the topic.
As a lot of members including me take "you can never have too much armor" as one of basic premises, I rise the question if this is right and only possibility.
We know that AI ships are usually not enough armored, especially battlecruisers but sometimes especially German ships have even more than 14" belt armor. On opposite players attitude is heavily armored ships, usually armored them enough that their armor would be adequate even years after launch.
But this added armor costs a lot of tonnage and thus increase quite a lot of displacement and costs of ship itself. Than we can have question. How our capital ships are being sunk? I find out that if the battle had ideal conditions that allow these heavy armored ships to fire at distance they usually never sunk. However I find out that they are being sunk usually in condition that their heavy armor is not so much usefull. So question arise is so much heavy armor really good think if we compare it with the costs.
Last 2 games I try completely different approach, to build ships for now not for future. So my design had much less armor in level similar to AI but they have been much cheaper. I know that vulnerability so adapt strategy and find out that at the end my losses did not rise at all. And I was able to have more ships which allow me as UK to have fleet as large as two other nations (including USA) almost whole game and for Russians have more ships and have much less the issue with blockade.
So my conclusion is that having the heavily armored ships are good, you can have some battles very easy but the other battles with worse weather conditions you are still limited. And having less armored ships are not so limited, you just need to accept you do not have superior ships but you have more of them.
So that "you can never have too much armour" is something not completely true.
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Dec 20, 2018 16:20:01 GMT -6
I also find it really odd just how much armour some players on here like to have. The cost of trying to protect a ship from 13" and larger guns is really high; I would rather have more ships.
|
|
snwh
Full Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by snwh on Dec 20, 2018 17:05:40 GMT -6
I think there's definately a balance to be struck here somewhere. I think the big difference is a trade off between making your designs somewhat future proof, but not going so high that they'll be obsolete. After all, eight inches or armor and barely any deck is plenty in 1900. But it starts to be pretty lacking quickly once better 12-13 inchers and AP shells come out. In my limited experience.
That being said. Im really curious just how much the cost or armor affects ships. Like, i think machinery is far and away the biggest cost in a ship. But of course, smaller guns and less armor means less weight, means less machinery.
Im really curious about this, sorta makes me want to do some !!SCIENCE!!, attempt to find the best way to minmax cost.
Honestly my aproach has always been to make the ship a very large tonnage and work from there. So thats another factor to consider in cost as well.
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Dec 20, 2018 21:48:09 GMT -6
I also find it really odd just how much armour some players on here like to have. The cost of trying to protect a ship from 13" and larger guns is really high; I would rather have more ships. Maybe, but you can get some truly insane protection levels if you desire, that 17" belt BC was pretty hilarious to see plowing right through the Regia Marina almost all by itself :v
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Dec 20, 2018 22:20:01 GMT -6
My armor philosophy:
1) You can *never* have too much turret armor.
2) You can *never* have too much turret armor.
3) As long as your turrets are protected, you can often skimp somewhat on citadel armor.
4) Deck armor isn't critical in the early game, but AI designs are horribly underdecked in the late game.
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Dec 21, 2018 9:18:33 GMT -6
2 Inches will get you by early game, but building designs with 3" will at least not make them liabilities once you get to around 1910 or so -depending who you pick fights with-.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 21, 2018 9:22:09 GMT -6
I think there's definately a balance to be struck here somewhere. I think the big difference is a trade off between making your designs somewhat future proof, but not going so high that they'll be obsolete. After all, eight inches or armor and barely any deck is plenty in 1900. But it starts to be pretty lacking quickly once better 12-13 inchers and AP shells come out. In my limited experience. That being said. Im really curious just how much the cost or armor affects ships. Like, i think machinery is far and away the biggest cost in a ship. But of course, smaller guns and less armor means less weight, means less machinery. Im really curious about this, sorta makes me want to do some !!SCIENCE!!, attempt to find the best way to minmax cost. Honestly my aproach has always been to make the ship a very large tonnage and work from there. So thats another factor to consider in cost as well. Yes, machinery is the most expensive with guns.
Just trying to design battlecruiser in 1918 as Italy in UK shipyard with 8x15" (323), 2x6x5", B 12", BE 2", D 3", DE 1", CT 5", T 15", TT 5", secondaries 2", TDS lvl 1 with coal (as Italy I do not have oil), short range, machinery for speed.
31 knots: 51.500 tons, costs 201 M - BC
28 knots: 37.600 tons, costs 142 M - BB 27 knots: 34.800 tons, costs 130 M - BB 26 knots: 32.700 tons, costs 121 M - BB
Going with 26 knots version changing belt armor from 12" and turret armor from 15" by increase:
0" : 32.700 tons costs 121 M 1" : 34.800 tons costs 127 M 2" : 37.100 tons costs 135 M 3" : 39.000 tons costs 147 M
So if we can compare basic variant 26 knots, for 9 M you can get 1 knot or by 6 M you can get 1" of belt and turret armor. Increasing deck armor is much more costly. Increase by 1" of deck and turret top armor: 1" : 36.700 tons costs 134 M 2" : 41.600 tons costs 152 M
Increase by 1" of vertical and 0.5" of horizontal armor on main belt/deck and turret armor. 1: 36.900 tons costs 135 M 2: 41.900 tons costs 152 M
So if we need to save money, we should not go over 28 knots by speed. By armor the most expensive is horizontal armor. 1" of horizontal armor is similar to 2" of vertical armor.
I think it is especially true for battleships as in battle line the newest and most armored battleships are in first place so older battleships do not get so much under fire.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 21, 2018 9:26:17 GMT -6
My armor philosophy: 1) You can *never* have too much turret armor. 2) You can *never* have too much turret armor. 3) As long as your turrets are protected, you can often skimp somewhat on citadel armor. 4) Deck armor isn't critical in the early game, but AI designs are horribly underdecked in the late game. How much deck armor you do use in late game? How much in what year? Issue is that at distance over 20.000 the deck armor penetration rise rapidly so it too costly to protect against such hits. I usually do complete horizontal protection for turret top armor but my deck armor even around 1920 stays at level against expected enemy guns at range up to 15.000-20.000. What is the issue if I have completely horizontal immunity if a lot of fights are in not ideal conditions when distance so low that my belt could be penetrated.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 21, 2018 9:28:10 GMT -6
I also find it really odd just how much armour some players on here like to have. The cost of trying to protect a ship from 13" and larger guns is really high; I would rather have more ships. Maybe, but you can get some truly insane protection levels if you desire, that 17" belt BC was pretty hilarious to see plowing right through the Regia Marina almost all by itself :v In ideal conditions yes, but take night or rainy day and your belt would not protect you at sighting ranges.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 21, 2018 9:32:40 GMT -6
2 Inches will get you by early game, but building designs with 3" will at least not make them liabilities once you get to around 1910 or so -depending who you pick fights with-. I expect you are talking about deck armor. In that case my legacy fleet pre-dreadnoughts have 1" of deck armor (2" TT) and have no issue at all. With the first dreadnoughts I usually start with 1.5-2" of deck armor as it take several years where accuracy of guns make hits on longer distance dangerous. I think that teoretical penetration values up to 1910 at the longest distance is unlikely to hit. And in that lucky case it hits there is some random of penetration and even if the hit penetrate, battleship should handle one hit into internals. My capital ships losses are usually from torpedoes in not ideal weather or vertical penetrations. If I fight at long ranges, loss of my ship is very unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 21, 2018 10:49:19 GMT -6
In ideal conditions yes, but take night or rainy day and your belt would not protect you at sighting ranges. If I can build a ship that has adequate protection some of the time or a similar ship that has inadequate protection all the time, and the ship that has adequate protection some of the time isn't that much more expensive than the ship that has inadequate protection all of the time, which do you think I should build? Yes, a 17" armor belt isn't going to protect the ship in a nighttime or foul-weather engagement, but it is going to protect it during daytime fair-weather engagements, and at about 130 million it's reasonably affordable, as late-game capital ships go. I'm more likely to lose either of the designs with 12" belts in daytime fair-weather engagements and no less likely to lose either of the designs with 12" belts in nighttime or foul-weather engagements, so paying an extra 20 million per ship for three more guns isn't worthwhile, and ~15 million isn't that much to pay for a level of protection adequate in daytime fair-weather engagements; it's somewhere around a half to one light cruiser per battlecruiser, or one capital ship for every eight or so battlecruisers that I build.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 21, 2018 12:06:06 GMT -6
In ideal conditions yes, but take night or rainy day and your belt would not protect you at sighting ranges. If I can build a ship that has adequate protection some of the time or a similar ship that has inadequate protection all the time, and the ship that has adequate protection some of the time isn't that much more expensive than the ship that has inadequate protection all of the time, which do you think I should build?
Yes, a 17" armor belt isn't going to protect the ship in a nighttime or foul-weather engagement, but it is going to protect it during daytime fair-weather engagements, and at about 130 million it's reasonably affordable, as late-game capital ships go. I'm more likely to lose either of the designs with 12" belts in daytime fair-weather engagements and no less likely to lose either of the designs with 12" belts in nighttime or foul-weather engagements, so paying an extra 20 million per ship for three more guns isn't worthwhile, and ~15 million isn't that much to pay for a level of protection adequate in daytime fair-weather engagements; it's somewhere around a half to one light cruiser per battlecruiser, or one capital ship for every eight or so battlecruisers that I build.
You write answer yourself. But I put another question. Why do you choose 17" belt, why not 16" or 18"?
Another point is you change only belt armor, however no vertical protection of turrets had changed. If one of these ships are balanced the second one certainly is out of balance. Not even mentioned deck armor which is most heavy.
And last question is when. You can start upgrading shipyards from start of the game, so when you start building dreadnoughts you should have no problem to build almost 30.000 tons. Does it have sence build 30.000 tons BB around 1905? Could this ship be fundamentaly stronger than standard 20.000 tons BB.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 21, 2018 14:30:38 GMT -6
You write answer yourself. But I put another question. Why do you choose 17" belt, why not 16" or 18"?
Another point is you change only belt armor, however no vertical protection of turrets had changed. If one of these ships are balanced the second one certainly is out of balance. Not even mentioned deck armor which is most heavy. The second (middle) ship of the three example designs is the only one of the three which is balanced, inasmuch as both its T/TT and B/D armor combinations provide theoretical zones of immunity against its own guns.
16"/Q1 armor penetration table from the same savestate in which those examples were designed: 4" deck armor will be penetrated by 16" shells starting at about 19,600 yards, 4.5" deck armor will be penetrated starting at about 21,000 yards, and 5" deck armor will be penetrated starting at about 22,100 yards; 16" belt armor will start to exclude 16" shells at about 20,600 yards, 17" belt armor will start to exclude 16" shells at about 19,100 yards, and 18" belt armor will start to exclude 16" shells at about 17,800 yards.
16" belt / 4" deck: No zone of immunity. 16" belt / 4.5" deck: 400-yard zone of immunity from 20,600 yards to 21,000 yards. Practically nonexistent. 16" belt / 5" deck armor: 1500-yard zone of immunity from 20,600 yards to 22,100 yards. Small but perhaps usable.
17" belt / 4" deck: 500-yard zone of immunity from 19,100 yards to 19,600 yards. Practically nonexistent. 17" belt / 4.5" deck: 1900-yard zone of immunity from 19,100 yards to 21,000 yards. Small but usable. 17" belt / 5" deck: 3000-yard zone of immunity from 19,100 yards to 22,100 yards. Small but usable.
18" belt / 4" deck: 1800-yard zone of immunity from 17,800 yards to 19,600 yards. Small but usable. 18" belt / 4.5" deck: 3200-yard zone of immunity from 17,800 yards to 21,000 yards. Small but usable. 18" belt / 5" deck: 4300-yard zone of immunity from 17,800 yards to 22,100 yards. Usable.
4" flat deck costs 4,681 tons, 4" sloped deck costs 5,361 tons, 4.5" flat deck costs 5,266 tons, 4.5" sloped deck costs 6,030 tons, 5" flat deck costs 5,851 tons, and 5" sloped deck costs 6,699 tons while 16" belt costs 8,222 tons, 17" belt costs 8,737 tons, and 18" belt costs 9,250 tons on a ~38,000 ton displacement. 17" belt / 4.5" deck provides roughly as usable a zone of immunity as 18" belt / 4" deck and costs about as much tonnage; similarly for 17" belt / 5" deck and 18" belt / 4.5" deck. 18" belt / 5" deck provides the best zone of immunity out of the combinations listed here but also easily costs the most.
So, why 17" belt / 4.5" deck instead of 16" belt / 5" deck or 18" belt / 4" deck? 16" belt / 5" deck offers the smallest zone of immunity, has its zone of immunity at the longest range, is the least vulnerable to plunging fire, and is also the heaviest combination by a small margin. 18" belt / 4" deck has the largest zone of immunity (by 100 yards), has its zone of immunity at the shortest range, is the most vulnerable to plunging fire, and is the lightest combination by a small margin. 17" belt / 4.5" deck is somewhere in between the other two, becoming vulnerable to plunging fire 1100 yards sooner than 16" / 5" but 1,400 yards later than 18" / 4", offering a zone of immunity 200 yards wider than 16" / 5" but 100 yards narrower than 18" / 4", and with the lower end of its zone of immunity 1300 yards further out than 18" / 4" but 1500 yards closer in than 16" / 4". 16" / 5" probably isn't worth it - with its zone of immunity being the smallest and furthest-out of the three, it's the most difficult to use, and as the combination with the highest tonnage cost (by a small margin) it's also likely to be the most expensive (by a small margin) - but 17" / 4.5" and 18" / 4" are probably about equally usable, with 17" / 4.5" reaching its ideal engagement band slightly sooner than 18" / 4" would in a scenario where the opposing fleet is detected beyond the desired engagement range band.
Turrets get 18" turret face and 6" (or sometimes heavier) turret top armor because hits that penetrate turret armor are easily the most serious hits that can occur within the game.
Incidentally, 4" deck armor is the lightest deck armor in the game at which you can have a theoretical zone of immunity against 16" guns with the penetration listed above. 3.5" deck armor becomes vulnerable to 16" plunging fire at about 17,700 yards - which is closer in than the range at which an 18" belt would become resistant to 16" shells.
If you can afford to build adequate numbers of ~30,000t battleships or battlecruisers instead of more historical ~20,000t battleships or battlecruisers circa 1905 without hampering the development of other parts of your fleet, then I do not see any particular reason why you should not do so; a ~30,000t ship will be significantly superior to a ~20,000t ship laid down at the same time.
That said, "do I build a 20,000-ton or a 30,000-ton ship in 1905" is largely a question of economics; "do I build a 35,000-ton ship with a zone of immunity or a very similar and little less expensive ship on 30,000 tons without a zone of immunity" is more of a question of common sense. You can make a decent 20,000t ship in 1905; a 30,000t ship is better, but it's also a lot more expensive and the 20,000t ship probably isn't inadequate or unduly vulnerable. Later in the game, you're choosing between building circumstantially-adequately-protected ships and building inadequately-protected ships that don't cost much, if any, less.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 21, 2018 14:58:10 GMT -6
You write answer yourself. But I put another question. Why do you choose 17" belt, why not 16" or 18"?
Another point is you change only belt armor, however no vertical protection of turrets had changed. If one of these ships are balanced the second one certainly is out of balance. Not even mentioned deck armor which is most heavy. The second (middle) ship of the three example designs is the only one of the three which is balanced, inasmuch as both its T/TT and B/D armor combinations provide theoretical zones of immunity against its own guns.
16"/Q1 armor penetration table from the same savestate in which those examples were designed:
4" deck armor will be penetrated by 16" shells starting at about 19,600 yards, 4.5" deck armor will be penetrated starting at about 21,000 yards, and 5" deck armor will be penetrated starting at about 22,100 yards; 16" belt armor will start to exclude 16" shells at about 20,600 yards, 17" belt armor will start to exclude 16" shells at about 19,100 yards, and 18" belt armor will start to exclude 16" shells at about 17,800 yards.
16" belt / 4" deck: No zone of immunity. 16" belt / 4.5" deck: 400-yard zone of immunity from 20,600 yards to 21,000 yards. Practically nonexistent. 16" belt / 5" deck armor: 1500-yard zone of immunity from 20,600 yards to 22,100 yards. Small but perhaps usable.
17" belt / 4" deck: 500-yard zone of immunity from 19,100 yards to 19,600 yards. Practically nonexistent. 17" belt / 4.5" deck: 1900-yard zone of immunity from 19,100 yards to 21,000 yards. Small but usable. 17" belt / 5" deck: 3000-yard zone of immunity from 19,100 yards to 22,100 yards. Small but usable.
18" belt / 4" deck: 1800-yard zone of immunity from 17,800 yards to 19,600 yards. Small but usable. 18" belt / 4.5" deck: 3200-yard zone of immunity from 17,800 yards to 21,000 yards. Small but usable. 18" belt / 5" deck: 4300-yard zone of immunity from 17,800 yards to 22,100 yards. Usable.
4" flat deck costs 4,681 tons, 4" sloped deck costs 5,361 tons, 4.5" flat deck costs 5,266 tons, 4.5" sloped deck costs 6,030 tons, 5" flat deck costs 5,851 tons, and 5" sloped deck costs 6,699 tons while 16" belt costs 8,222 tons, 17" belt costs 8,737 tons, and 18" belt costs 9,250 tons on a ~38,000 ton displacement. 17" belt / 4.5" deck provides roughly as usable a zone of immunity as 18" belt / 4" deck and costs about as much tonnage; similarly for 17" belt / 5" deck and 18" belt / 4.5" deck. 18" belt / 5" deck provides the best zone of immunity out of the combinations listed here but also easily costs the most.
So, why 17" belt / 4.5" deck instead of 16" belt / 5" deck or 18" belt / 4" deck? 16" belt / 5" deck offers the smallest zone of immunity, has its zone of immunity at the longest range, is the least vulnerable to plunging fire, and is also the heaviest combination by a small margin. 18" belt / 4" deck has the largest zone of immunity (by 100 yards), has its zone of immunity at the shortest range, is the most vulnerable to plunging fire, and is the lightest combination by a small margin. 17" belt / 4.5" deck is somewhere in between the other two, becoming vulnerable to plunging fire 1100 yards sooner than 16" / 5" but 1,400 yards later than 18" / 4", offering a zone of immunity 200 yards wider than 16" / 5" but 100 yards narrower than 18" / 4", and with the lower end of its zone of immunity 1300 yards further out than 18" / 4" but 1500 yards closer in than 16" / 4". 16" / 5" probably isn't worth it - with its zone of immunity being the smallest and furthest-out of the three, it's the most difficult to use, and as the combination with the highest tonnage cost (by a small margin) it's also likely to be the most expensive (by a small margin) - but 17" / 4.5" and 18" / 4" are probably about equally usable, with 17" / 4.5" reaching its ideal engagement band slightly sooner than 18" / 4" would in a scenario where the opposing fleet is detected beyond the desired engagement range band.
Turrets get 18" turret face and 6" (or sometimes heavier) turret top armor because hits that penetrate turret armor are easily the most serious hits that can occur within the game. If you can afford to build adequate numbers of 30,000t battleships or battlecruisers instead of more historical 20,000t battleships or battlecruisers circa 1905, then I do not see any particular reason why you should not do so; a 30,000t ship will be significantly superior to a 20,000t ship laid down at the same time.
I can see issue with immunity zone concept. In reality of RTW, your immunity is much higher. Until you have AoN armor, you issue is forward and aft part of the ship which with enough hits could sink ship. Another issue is superstructure which decrase efficiency of the ship. I have several fights with "invincible" ships - armored citadel facing a little tougher oppositon (not quality but quantity). It was the issue as the main task is disable enemy ship and for such task you do not need penetration ability. The turrets could be disabled even with not penetrating hits, you ship slowed down by demolishing structure, bow etc. And at the end if ship is disabled or her fighting abilities are at minimum armor does not help.
With AoN armor disable ship is tougher but the concept is the same. I quite often run for the life with superior ship with less guns against smaller enemy ships with much more guns even underarmored. One turret disabled, your firepower limited and enemy firepower striking you shell after shell. The good armored citadel helps the immunity is contested.
Just note: It is about the fact that there is alternative, quite fun, more "historical" and at the end gets same result.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 21, 2018 16:08:23 GMT -6
Just recent fight.
It was unexpected night encounter in 1919 during war with France after sinking 1 battlecruiser during day.
Hits on battlecruiser Roma which has 13" narrow belt and extended belt armor, 2.5" of sloped deck armor, no deck armor on extended part of ship, 14" turret armor.
23 18:15 13 in 3412 yds Hull hit BE 23 18:15 13 in 3412 yds Fore/aft hull hit * 23 18:16 13 in 2937 yds Secondary battery hit * 23 18:16 13 in 2937 yds Fore/aft hull hit * 23 18:16 12 in 1442 yds Turret A hit T Turret disabled 23 18:17 13 in 2874 yds Superstructure hit * DE* Hull damaged by splinters 23 18:17 Limits flooding! 23 18:18 12 in 3061 yds Hull hit B * 23 18:18 Limits flooding! 23 18:19 Torpedo 23 18:19 13 in 2798 yds Superstructure passthrough hit * 23 18:19 13 in 2798 yds Hull hit B * Shell burst limited by coal bunker Brennus, AP) 23 18:19 12 in 2806 yds Hull hit B 23 18:19 12 in 2806 yds Hull hit B 23 18:19 12 in 2806 yds Superstructure passthrough hit * AP) 23 18:20 13 in 2739 yds Hull hit BE * 23 18:20 13 in 2739 yds Engine room hit B 23 18:20 12 in 2605 yds Secondary battery hit * 23 18:20 12 in 2605 yds Superstructure passthrough hit * AP) 23 18:20 Limits flooding! 23 18:21 12 in 2585 yds Superstructure hit BE 23 18:21 12 in 2585 yds Engine room hit BE 23 18:22 13 in 2952 yds Hull hit B
I do not think that 1-2" of armor would make any difference.
|
|