|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 15, 2019 15:50:05 GMT -6
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. adseria was using the CLAA designation to argue that the Atlantas were not meant to fight other cruisers.
I never said that the cruisers changed when they were reclassified. Furthermore, a reclassification to reflect the role for which a ship was actually used says very little about the role for which the ship was intended, other than that the original classification - which more likely reflects the role for which the ship was intended - did not adequately match the role for which the ship was used.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Feb 15, 2019 17:36:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by aetreus on Feb 17, 2019 0:05:47 GMT -6
The reason for adopting an all-5" armament on the Atlanta class is that previous attempts at designing a smaller 6" armed cruiser(which had been ongoing since 1934) had failed to combine a good number of 6" guns with sufficient AA armament. The hoped-for solution was the 6" DP gun, which was ultimately beyond the capabilities of the late 30's and got delayed into irrelevance. Hence the ships were ultimately built with a large 5" battery.
I'd guess that for the player to end up making ships like this they'd need to face a similar restriction, either treaty-enforced or due to a need for light cruisers for commerce protection. Depending on how tech gates larger DP guns you might have to make the same call the General Board did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 17, 2019 2:50:04 GMT -6
The reason for adopting an all-5" armament on the Atlanta class is that previous attempts at designing a smaller 6" armed cruiser(which had been ongoing since 1934) had failed to combine a good number of 6" guns with sufficient AA armament. The hoped-for solution was the 6" DP gun, which was ultimately beyond the capabilities of the late 30's and got delayed into irrelevance. Hence the ships were ultimately built with a large 5" battery. I'd guess that for the player to end up making ships like this they'd need to face a similar restriction, either treaty-enforced or due to a need for light cruisers for commerce protection. Depending on how tech gates larger DP guns you might have to make the same call the General Board did. Why a design was or wasn't built historically is irrelevant. RTW is a game. The point is to try things that aren't necessarily realistic, to see how well they might have worked. The devs have already mentioned that 4" and 5" guns will be the best DP weapons, so I want to experiment with a cruiser armed with large numbers of smaller calibre guns, and possibly even build it alongside a ship with a smaller number of 6" (possibly DP) guns for comparison. I'm not saying it will be an effective design, but it might be useful, and I think it will be interesting to see how well such a design works. Even if the devs decide not to allow super-superfiring, I'll almost certainly try a similar design (with centreline turrets), and I don't imagine it would cause a huge amount of problems assuming the ship was fast enough and/or used with enough skill (not saying I have that skill, but meh  ).
|
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 26, 2019 6:31:31 GMT -6
Found another IRL example of this; the Soviet Stalingrad-class battlecruiser (aka Project 82) would have had a superfiring pair of 130mm guns superimposed over the forward 12" turrets. So, not only super-superfiring, but super-super-superfiring too.
EDIT: Oh, and possibly another pair of 130mms over the single aft 12", too.
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on Feb 27, 2019 5:43:52 GMT -6
i do think triple superfiring should be added but i also think you should be able to customize each turret so you could create a layout like what the yamato had for example which had a superfiring 6.1 inch gun behind and in front of the superstructure
although i need to think a bit more on how you could implement such a system
|
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Feb 27, 2019 6:29:36 GMT -6
Yeah, Superfiring with different size guns was pretty common, like in the USS Alaska:  |
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Feb 27, 2019 9:33:53 GMT -6
Triple "height stages" for the main armament would be the first - and arguably, at least for RtW2 and strictly speaking only for myself - enough step.
The rest of the issue stems from that secondary armament is fairly abstracted in RtW, and according to my limited experience, basically it's just "half goes to portside, half goes to starboard side". Don't get me wrong, there are still interesting intricacies, like casemate armor, turrets vs. sea state and all that jazz, but all in all, exact position does not matter, and probably this is why there is no centerline secondary armament in RtW, as the game probably(?) can not work with a sec. gun that fires to both sides currently.
It sure as hell can when it comes to centerline main armament, multiple centerline at that, or even superfiring, so unlike the secondaries (and again, it's not that I would not _love_ to see or use centerline smaller caliber turrets), there is possibly no in-engine wall that stops the implementation of hyper-superfiring arrangement. For how much work - now, that's a different question.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 27, 2019 10:27:03 GMT -6
Triple "height stages" for the main armament would be the first - and arguably, at least for RtW2 and strictly speaking only for myself - enough step. The rest of the issue stems from that secondary armament is fairly abstracted in RtW, and according to my limited experience, basically it's just "half goes to portside, half goes to starboard side". Don't get me wrong, there are still interesting intricacies, like casemate armor, turrets vs. sea state and all that jazz, but all in all, exact position does not matter, and probably this is why there is no centerline secondary armament in RtW, as the game probably(?) can not work with a sec. gun that fires to both sides currently. It sure as hell can when it comes to centerline main armament, multiple centerline at that, or even superfiring, so unlike the secondaries (and again, it's not that I would not _love_ to see or use centerline smaller caliber turrets), there is possibly no in-engine wall that stops the implementation of hyper-superfiring arrangement. For how much work - now, that's a different question. As I understand it, if you have an odd number of secondary turrets (for instance, my "default" secondary battery is 10x4" in twin turrets, which I use for most of my battleship designs, once I can have secondary turrets without penalty), the odd turret will go on the centreline; the game just doesn't have logic for showing it in the top-down image. I'm not sure how target selection works, though. |
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Feb 27, 2019 10:45:06 GMT -6
As I understand it, if you have an odd number of secondary turrets (for instance, my "default" secondary battery is 10x4" in twin turrets, which I use for most of my battleship designs, once I can have secondary turrets without penalty), the odd turret will go on the centreline; the game just doesn't have logic for showing it in the top-down image. I'm not sure how target selection works, though. Is that so? Oh, I wasn't aware of that, thank you for the clarification. While I did read the manual, the SAI manual and Fredrik's tidbits, yet I can't remember this (which is not a surprise really, looking at either my memory or the fact that information about RtW is, frankly, scattered well across the plane of time-space). If so, that's good enough for me, honestly. One would maybe assume the sec. turret is always in "superfiring" position when it comes to the firing angles, and that's "fit for purpose" as far as I care. Maybe the visual representation would be nifty, though admittedly not a high-priority issue.
Main armament, however.... |
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 27, 2019 12:58:31 GMT -6
As I understand it, if you have an odd number of secondary turrets (for instance, my "default" secondary battery is 10x4" in twin turrets, which I use for most of my battleship designs, once I can have secondary turrets without penalty), the odd turret will go on the centreline; the game just doesn't have logic for showing it in the top-down image. I'm not sure how target selection works, though. Is that so? Oh, I wasn't aware of that, thank you for the clarification. While I did read the manual, the SAI manual and Fredrik's tidbits, yet I can't remember this (which is not a surprise really, looking at either my memory or the fact that information about RtW is, frankly, scattered well across the plane of time-space). If so, that's good enough for me, honestly. One would maybe assume the sec. turret is always in "superfiring" position when it comes to the firing angles, and that's "fit for purpose" as far as I care. Maybe the visual representation would be nifty, though admittedly not a high-priority issue.
Main armament, however.... Copy-pasted from the appendix of the manual: "Secondary guns: are only recorded as to the total number. Note that they have a quality value, just like main guns. Secondary guns are assumed to be placed half on each side of the ship. Note that the graphic representation of the secondary guns is generalized. You can have an odd number of secondary guns. The graphics logic can't really handle odd numbers of secondaries, but any odd guns left over are assumed to be on the centerline by the gunnery logic."
I don't think the turret is superfiring, because I've never seen secondary hits directly ahead or astern.Then again, I'm relatively new to the game, so it's possible that I haven't been in a situation where that was a factor. Or maybe I have, and I'm just an idiot. That's probably more likely .
Honestly, I'd prefer to be able to place each secondary turret manually, the same as primaries and torpedoes. That would also allow you to have different numbers of guns in each turret (again, like primaries and torpedoes). But I realise that that would be more work and etc, so the system we have is good enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by ddg on Feb 28, 2019 20:04:34 GMT -6
Note that it says secondary guns and not secondary turrets. I think that as long as you have an even number of guns half of them will be distributed to each side regardless of the turret arrangement. E.g., ten guns in twin turrets will result in two and a half turrets (five guns) per side. As far as I am aware, the number of guns per turret affects only the weight of the battery and the number destroyed by incoming fire.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Mar 8, 2019 3:55:44 GMT -6
Do you need to have triple superfiring turrets to make a CLAA?
I realise you need it to accurately replicate Atlanta's looks, but do you need it to replicate Atlanta's functionality?
Does a turret housing DP guns have any restriction in its fire arc in the AA role based on if it is superfiring or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Mar 8, 2019 11:10:01 GMT -6
Do you need to have triple superfiring turrets to make a CLAA? I realise you need it to accurately replicate Atlanta's looks, but do you need it to replicate Atlanta's functionality? Does a turret housing DP guns have any restriction in its fire arc in the AA role based on if it is superfiring or not? Even if the AA arcs aren't restricted, it can't hurt to have as many guns as possible firing at the destroyer you're chasing. |
|
).
