|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 14, 2019 6:54:12 GMT -6
In RTW1, it's only possible to have 2 superfiring turrets forward and 2 aft; even if you have V, X and Y turrets, V turret reverts to just being a centreline turret. However, having 3 superfiring wasn't impossible, as demonstrated by the Atlanta class (having 3 superfiring turrets both fore and aft). However, the Atlanta class, as I recall, suffered from stability issues from having so much weight so high in the superstructure. I propose having the ability to have a third superfiring turret, but with a penalty, either a direct weight penalty or an accuracy penalty to all guns, to simulate that stability issue.
|
|
bakara
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by bakara on Feb 14, 2019 7:03:49 GMT -6
Another thing to note with this which is related to the stability issue is that if you have 3 superfiring turrets the last ones barbette is gonna be very tall (read heavy). But i agree it would be interesting to be able to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 14, 2019 7:17:49 GMT -6
Another thing to note with this which is related to the stability issue is that if you have 3 superfiring turrets the last ones barbette is gonna be very tall (read heavy). But i agree it would be interesting to be able to do it. All the more reason to give it a weight penalty. |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 14, 2019 10:24:17 GMT -6
Weight for superfiring turrets is already accounted for in the design process of RTW1. No reason to think it wouldn't be for RTW2 as well. Stability and top weight were not, for the most part, considered in the game. It would be tremendously complicated to do so (from a programming standpoint) I would think.
My guess would be that three superfiring turrets have been discussed and probably will be in the game with some kind of limit on size of caliber and number of guns that can be in the upper-most turret. The largest turrets that I can think of that were used in a triple superfiring position (other than the triple 6.1" secondary turret on Yamato) were the 5.25 twin turrets on Dido and the 5 inch twins on Atlanta/Oakland
|
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Feb 14, 2019 10:28:48 GMT -6
I actually believe that this used to be possible, but was considered such a historical oddity that the capability to do so was removed in a later patch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 14, 2019 10:36:26 GMT -6
Weight for superfiring turrets is already accounted for in the design process of RTW1. No reason to think it wouldn't be for RTW2 as well. Stability and top weight were not, for the most part, considered in the game. It would be tremendously complicated to do so (from a programming standpoint) I would think. My guess would be that three superfiring turrets have been discussed and probably will be in the game with some kind of limit on size of caliber and number of guns that can be in the upper-most turret. The largest turrets that I can think of that were used in a triple superfiring position (other than the tripel 6.1" secondary turret on Yamato) were the 5.25 twin turrets on Dido and the 5 inch twins on Atlanta/ OaklandThis sounds fine to me; honestly I just want to try an Atlanta-style CLAA, and doing that while only being allowed 2 superfiring turrets would be awkward unless you were willing to use triple or quad turrets. |
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 14, 2019 10:38:20 GMT -6
I actually believe that this used to be possible, but was considered such a historical oddity that the capability to do so was removed in a later patch.
Well, I hope they bring it back for RTW2, and preferably add the option to have it in the bow too. |
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Feb 14, 2019 14:06:25 GMT -6
Weight for superfiring turrets is already accounted for in the design process of RTW1. No reason to think it wouldn't be for RTW2 as well. Stability and top weight were not, for the most part, considered in the game. It would be tremendously complicated to do so (from a programming standpoint) I would think. My guess would be that three superfiring turrets have been discussed and probably will be in the game with some kind of limit on size of caliber and number of guns that can be in the upper-most turret. The largest turrets that I can think of that were used in a triple superfiring position (other than the tripel 6.1" secondary turret on Yamato) were the 5.25 twin turrets on Dido and the 5 inch twins on Atlanta/ OaklandThis sounds fine to me; honestly I just want to try an Atlanta-style CLAA, and doing that while only being allowed 2 superfiring turrets would be awkward unless you were willing to use triple or quad turrets.
Tried it once and the effects were less than spectacular. 5in lack penetration and damage to knock out typical late game 4x2 6in cruisers while the weak turret armour on your ship (necessary to fit all those turrets on CL displacement) means guns are knocked out after every hit. Triple superfiring forward may help, but it is questionable it will be decisive.
Still, I hope triple superfiring is allowed for light guns in RTW2
|
|
|
|
Post by forcea1 on Feb 14, 2019 17:27:18 GMT -6
K25G and K25G*, preliminary designs for the Fiji class had 4 superfiring 5.25 inch turrets forward and 3 superfiring turrets aft. Had the Controller of the Navy (Third Sea Lord) Admiral Henderson, had his way, it would have been built instead of the 6 inch gun armed design that was developed from the competing K31 design.
|
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Feb 14, 2019 20:15:55 GMT -6
This sounds fine to me; honestly I just want to try an Atlanta-style CLAA, and doing that while only being allowed 2 superfiring turrets would be awkward unless you were willing to use triple or quad turrets.
Tried it once and the effects were less than spectacular. 5in lack penetration and damage to knock out typical late game 4x2 6in cruisers while the weak turret armour on your ship (necessary to fit all those turrets on CL displacement) means guns are knocked out after every hit. Triple superfiring forward may help, but it is questionable it will be decisive.
Still, I hope triple superfiring is allowed for light guns in RTW2
Maybe this is something that will get better and more practical in the RtW2 expanded timeframe? Better penetration on smaller shells and lighter armor (as well as ship design improvements in general) might make the Atlanta design more practical. If it's still too much of an outlier, though, that would be understandable, though that Schleswig-Holstein pictured above does look pretty boss. |
|
|
|
Post by asdfzxc922 on Feb 15, 2019 0:04:56 GMT -6
The Mogami (pre-refit), Juneau and Worcester-class CLs had limited double-superfiring capability, where the second deck-level turret could fire over the first at high elevations. This was mostly intended for AA use, but the minimum safe elevation was low enough in all cases that it probably would have worked just as well against distant surface targets.
|
|
|
|
Post by galagagalaxian on Feb 15, 2019 0:19:10 GMT -6
Unfortunately I believe it was mentioned in the past you will not be able to do a turret configuration like that. A shame but not many ships used such a setup.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 15, 2019 1:30:19 GMT -6
This sounds fine to me; honestly I just want to try an Atlanta-style CLAA, and doing that while only being allowed 2 superfiring turrets would be awkward unless you were willing to use triple or quad turrets.
Tried it once and the effects were less than spectacular. 5in lack penetration and damage to knock out typical late game 4x2 6in cruisers while the weak turret armour on your ship (necessary to fit all those turrets on CL displacement) means guns are knocked out after every hit. Triple superfiring forward may help, but it is questionable it will be decisive.
Still, I hope triple superfiring is allowed for light guns in RTW2
You know, a "light anti-aircraft cruiser" isn't meant to shoot cruisers. The clue's in the name. The reason it didn't work for you is that there were no aircraft to shoot at.
EDIT: Plus, it would be a nightmare for destroyers; it's a fleet escort cruiser, not a hunter-killer.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 15, 2019 2:49:52 GMT -6
You know, a "light anti-aircraft cruiser" isn't meant to shoot cruisers. The clue's in the name. The reason it didn't work for you is that there were no aircraft to shoot at. The Atlanta- and similar Dido-class cruisers might not have been intended to fight the heavier ~10,000t 6" and 8" cruisers without support, but they were absolutely meant to be capable of engaging similarly-large surface combatants such as the Japanese Agano-class cruisers and lighter surface combatants such as the Italian Capitani Romani class scout cruisers, and were not to my understanding primarily intended for service as anti-aircraft escorts, the Atlantas being primarily intended to act as scout cruisers and flotilla leaders while the Didos were meant more for trade protection. Obviously, anti-aircraft capability was a consideration or the ships would not have had dual-purpose main batteries, but it is inaccurate to say that they were not meant to engage other cruisers.
Also, the Atlanta- and Juneau-class cruisers were only redesignated as light cruiser, anti-aircraft (CLAA) in 1949; prior to that, they had been designated as light cruisers (CL).
|
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Feb 15, 2019 3:24:57 GMT -6
Also, the Atlanta- and Juneau-class cruisers were only redesignated as light cruiser, anti-aircraft (CLAA) in 1949; prior to that, they had been designated as light cruisers (CL).
That was in March 1948. The reason they didn't have this classification before is because it didn't exist... It was created then specifically for these ships. It's hard to argue that they should have had a classification which didn't exist. The cruisers did not change though, they were the same as before. The classification changed to better reflect the role they were used for in WW2 which is Anti Air protection. |
|
