|
|
Post by Adseria on May 16, 2019 13:42:09 GMT -6
Incidentally, one thing I would like to see is the ability to auto-generate superstructure. I'm no artist, and it's kind of immersion-breaking to see my carriers still sailing around with cruiser superstructure and no flight deck.
|
|
jma286
Junior Member
Posts: 97 
|
Post by jma286 on May 16, 2019 14:00:08 GMT -6
I was able to convert an armored cruiser into a CVL as the UK without any problems. It was 14,000 tons and had a 23 knot speed so those boxes were checked. Took all the guns off, added a flight deck and some DP and AA and I had my CVL. I agree that drawing the carrier superstructure is challenging since you can't just draw half and have the other half automatically populate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 16, 2019 14:01:35 GMT -6
I was able to convert an armored cruiser into a CVL as the UK without any problems. It was 14,000 tons and had a 23 knot speed so those boxes were checked. Took all the guns off, added a flight deck and some DP and AA and I had my CVL. I agree that drawing the carrier superstructure is challenging since you can't just draw half and have the other half automatically populate. You should still keep the assymmetric option off when drawing the flight deck, much easier. BTW guys, according to the tech files purpose built CVLs make appearance only two years after conversions (1920 vs 1918 date). I wonder if too much ado is made of conversions. Though for CVs the gap is bigger. |
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on May 16, 2019 14:18:13 GMT -6
The best CVL conversion is a new AS built only for the conversion. Second is any ship of ~15000 t displacement with negligible armour (which is therefore not that useful unless you go full Fisher). Conversions of standard warships is a distant third, due to the low amount of available displacement for an air compliment and high costs of conversion.
I don't think that very many people will make CVL conversions of most warships because it is simply not worth it - you pay almost as much for a significantly worse warship compared to just scrapping the ships you have and building ships for the purpose of converting them.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawk on May 16, 2019 15:02:42 GMT -6
I don't think that very many people will make CVL conversions of most warships because it is simply not worth it - you pay almost as much for a significantly worse warship compared to just scrapping the ships you have and building ships for the purpose of converting them. The price for converting an old pre-dred or a semi-dred(getting the speed high enough(20-22knts)-usually via a re-engine) isn't that bad price or time wise...and it still provides you with a quick conversion/introduction vessel so that your boffins and flyers can get some experience in. And they typically give you a 20-24 plane airgroup which isn't bad either. Are they worth doing en-mass? No probably not. But they make for decent starters. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 16, 2019 15:06:00 GMT -6
How the hell AI? Seriously! WTF? Somehow the UK AI appears to have managed to convert a pair of BCs into CVLs when I couldn't manage the same in any UK game I played. I've played enough of the demo now to know the AI is lucky to complete even one CVL conversion before the end of the game. So I was amazingly surprised when I checked in on the Almanac playing as Japan in early 1923 and found that not only had the Brits managed to convert a PAIR of CVLs...they were made from ****ing BCs! And they were parked on my doorstep because of a flair up of tensions between Russia and Japan(The Brits were cool with me). I'd say it was probably because i'd managed to convert 5 pre-dreds into CVLs early on and had a sixth AV to CVL conversion in the works. Still...kinda frustrating when they can seemingly bend the rules for these sorts of things. I found an 18,300t CVL in the legacy construction program at the start of one play through the demo as Britain, so your Cressy might be the same kind of thing. Rule the Waves 1 allowed auto-generated legacy construction to cheat on the rules a bit; I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the same were true in Rule the Waves 2. Wish the one I got was as good as the ones your AI Britain got, though; mine might've been the same size, but it wasn't as well armored (8.5" belt, 2.5" deck) and it only carried 9 aircraft.
As to the CVLs being a reaction to your CVL fleet, I suppose it's possible but I have doubts; I don't think I've created fewer than five large-ish CVL conversions any of the times I've played through the demo, so my assumption, at the moment, is that the AI either does not or is extremely reluctant to convert existing ships into carriers and only builds them if it manages to develop the technology for purpose-built carriers, which I've never managed to get without save-editing. I've only once seen the computer build a CVL once - a smallish German one, if I recall correctly - and it was still incomplete at the end of 1925 so I don't know how good it would've been. It was probably a purpose-built CVL, if I had to guess, since conversions don't seem to show up in the Almanac. That was the same playthrough where I found the 18,300-ton Kent with a capacity of 9 aircraft in the legacy construction program; I converted sixteen other large ships to CVLs by the end of about 1922 in that game (six battleships, two battlecruisers, and eight large armored cruisers; total fleetwide aircraft capacity after conversions were completed was 299), and in my current run through the demo - as Japan - there aren't any AI-built CVLs as of March 1925 despite me having 14 CVLs with an aggregate displacement of 188,600 tons and a total aircraft capacity of 274. |
|
|
|
Post by chaosblade on May 16, 2019 15:53:17 GMT -6
The problem would come as aeroplanes became more advanced and less reliant on a close, sturdy carrier. When you're launching an attack from 100 miles away, there's no need to have an all-singing-all-dancing fleet carrier. You could just build attack squadrons of carriers from AMCs and rely on superior aeroplane designs. To remedy this, I suggest that only planes designed before 1930 can take off from an AMC deck due to the newer launch and recovery equipment required. That would mean they are possible but less desirable as the game progresses, similar to CA conversions. I want to point out to you that escort carriers built on transports will not have good speed; probably about 17 to 18 knots maximum and a deck length of maybe 450-500 feet. Now, if you build a torpedo bomber, that weighs fully loaded with a torpedo, fuel, and ammunition it will weigh-in about 15,000 lbs. You are going to need about 25 knots over that deck to launch that bird even with a steam or hydraulic catapult. They did launch them from the escorts to augment the fleet carrier air wings when there were operational and non-operational losses. However, those birds were clean, no ordnance and minimum fuel to reach the designed fleet carrier. They even added additional tanks in the bomb bay for a long distance run but it was touchy getting off the deck. The best use of escort carriers was to have fighters for fleet defense and inner patrols against submarines. You could even design a reconnaissance aircraft that is dedicated and has a long range with two crew members. This could augment the fleet carriers relieving them of the task and preserving their air wings for strikes. The aircraft would have no ordnance except a machine gun for defense in the rear and possibly two, one in each wing to save weight. Example: TBF with one MK13 torpedo, 335 gallons of fuel had a take-off distance in calm of 1071 feet, in 15 knots about 650 feet, in 25 knots about 435 feet. SBD-3 with one 1000 lbs. bomb, 249 gallons of fuel had a take-off distance in a 25 kn. wind of about 500 feet. The flight deck length on a Yorktown class was over 809 feet. The distances for both of these aircraft could be less from a carrier doing about 32 knots. Well, it does depend the ship design, and while most transports were slow... you could, theoretically do the same with an old or aging transatlantic liner, and get a fastish conversion, so you could get, maybe, something in the 20-25 kn range An AMC conversion would need a catapult, or a special deck arrangement, so that you need more space per plane, or some other mechanic, but it should be totally doable, specially since a lot of the Escort Carriers done by the US were cargo conversions and did average the 20kn mark
That said, I do feel a bit odd about the whole thing, since I'd need to draw the deck and the superstructure, which is a minus. as an asides, I am a bit dissapointed there is no value for number of elevators
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 16, 2019 16:11:12 GMT -6
I want to point out to you that escort carriers built on transports will not have good speed; probably about 17 to 18 knots maximum and a deck length of maybe 450-500 feet. Now, if you build a torpedo bomber, that weighs fully loaded with a torpedo, fuel, and ammunition it will weigh-in about 15,000 lbs. You are going to need about 25 knots over that deck to launch that bird even with a steam or hydraulic catapult. They did launch them from the escorts to augment the fleet carrier air wings when there were operational and non-operational losses. However, those birds were clean, no ordnance and minimum fuel to reach the designed fleet carrier. They even added additional tanks in the bomb bay for a long distance run but it was touchy getting off the deck. The best use of escort carriers was to have fighters for fleet defense and inner patrols against submarines. You could even design a reconnaissance aircraft that is dedicated and has a long range with two crew members. This could augment the fleet carriers relieving them of the task and preserving their air wings for strikes. The aircraft would have no ordnance except a machine gun for defense in the rear and possibly two, one in each wing to save weight. Example: TBF with one MK13 torpedo, 335 gallons of fuel had a take-off distance in calm of 1071 feet, in 15 knots about 650 feet, in 25 knots about 435 feet. SBD-3 with one 1000 lbs. bomb, 249 gallons of fuel had a take-off distance in a 25 kn. wind of about 500 feet. The flight deck length on a Yorktown class was over 809 feet. The distances for both of these aircraft could be less from a carrier doing about 32 knots. Well, it does depend the ship design, and while most transports were slow... you could, theoretically do the same with an old or aging transatlantic liner, and get a fastish conversion, so you could get, maybe, something in the 20-25 kn range An AMC conversion would need a catapult, or a special deck arrangement, so that you need more space per plane, or some other mechanic, but it should be totally doable, specially since a lot of the Escort Carriers done by the US were cargo conversions and did average the 20kn mark
That said, I do feel a bit odd about the whole thing, since I'd need to draw the deck and the superstructure, which is a minus. as an asides, I am a bit dissapointed there is no value for number of elevators
The IJN took over two ocean liners and converted them to the Hiyo-class escort carriers in 1942. The problem with them was that their machinery was not up to the level needed for fleet operations. I suspect it was a combination of speed and maintenance. Neither ship was finished as an ocean liners since the war was in progress. The freeboard on ocean liners is generally high enough for a carrier but again, it is the machinery and the space necessary for any upgrades to machinery. |
|
|
|
Post by chaosblade on May 16, 2019 16:36:46 GMT -6
Well, it does depend the ship design, and while most transports were slow... you could, theoretically do the same with an old or aging transatlantic liner, and get a fastish conversion, so you could get, maybe, something in the 20-25 kn range An AMC conversion would need a catapult, or a special deck arrangement, so that you need more space per plane, or some other mechanic, but it should be totally doable, specially since a lot of the Escort Carriers done by the US were cargo conversions and did average the 20kn mark That said, I do feel a bit odd about the whole thing, since I'd need to draw the deck and the superstructure, which is a minus. as an asides, I am a bit dissapointed there is no value for number of elevators
The IJN took over two ocean liners and converted them to the Hiyo-class escort carriers in 1942. The problem with them was that their machinery was not up to the level needed for fleet operations. I suspect it was a combination of speed and maintenance. Neither ship was finished as an ocean liners since the war was in progress. The freeboard on ocean liners is generally high enough for a carrier but again, it is the machinery and the space necessary for any upgrades to machinery. Ultimately we are talking about conversions, so them having issues should be reasonable and expected. their machinery might be unreliable, or they might have issues maintaining the proper speed, which would mean longer times to get the planes up and about, specially getting an escorted strike force going, but agian using those hulls either as Escort Carriers (mostly to deal with anti sub warfare or ground support?)sounds like an acceptable tradeoff Or they can have a restricted hangar deck.... which is also something that isn't simulated in game, that limitation could again be an issue at preparing a strike or even a cap and could also limit the size of planes it could hold, wich seems to be another thing missing from the designer |
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on May 16, 2019 19:27:26 GMT -6
I don't think that very many people will make CVL conversions of most warships because it is simply not worth it - you pay almost as much for a significantly worse warship compared to just scrapping the ships you have and building ships for the purpose of converting them. The price for converting an old pre-dred or a semi-dred(getting the speed high enough(20-22knts)-usually via a re-engine) isn't that bad price or time wise...and it still provides you with a quick conversion/introduction vessel so that your boffins and flyers can get some experience in. And they typically give you a 20-24 plane airgroup which isn't bad either. Are they worth doing en-mass? No probably not. But they make for decent starters. I whipped up a few games to test this out thoroughly; I've done conversions for the "larger" CVL designs. It's worth noting that I'm having mandatory requirements of 4x4" DP, maximum AA for remaining deck space, and TDS >1 (or bulged) if possible, all of which I feel to be good design practices after a few very expensive losses while playing the demo. Since the legacy fleet tends to be built off the same basic designs, these should be pretty standard. For cost, I'm assuming present worth is equal to future worth which isn't exactly true but more exact values are going to depend on the situation. First off is the 1920 legacy 23 kn long range 14,000 t displacement CA: That's a total cost of 1,908, and an opportunity cost of 560 (or keeping a very useful R/FS ship). Maintenance costs are 198/month. Second is the 1920 legacy 25 kn 14,800 t displacement CA: That's a total cost of 1,992, and opportunity costs of 592 (or an even better CA than the 14 kt design). Maintenance costs are 215/month. Thanks to being one of the few legacy ships with a TDS, it doesn't need to get bulged. Next is the 1920 legacy 24 kn 15,400 t displacement BC: That's a total cost of 1,992, and an opportunity cost of 616 (or, again, keeping what is still a very useful ship). Maintenance costs weren't recorded. Fourth is the 1920 legacy 18 kn 15,000 t displacement B: That's a total cost of 18,870, and an opportunity cost of 600. Maintenance costs are 223/month. I wouldn't keep the base predread anyways. Fifth is the 1,920 legacy 18 kn 15,700 t displacement B: That's a total cost of 9,984, and an opportunity cost of 628. Maintenance costs are 194/month. It's important to note that this one doesn't have any torpedo protection whatsoever due to the displacement limit, which makes it quite the risky investment. Sixth is the "high" purpose-built AV conversion:   (I forgot to screenshot in the rebuild screen, but it's just over 200 t spare instead of 600 when built properly) This is basically pushing the envelope on a AV conversion. It's not cost effective whatsoever, but it's near the realistic upper end of what you can do. It has a total design and build cost of almost 65,000. Maintenance costs are 248/month. That's the price to pay for baby fleet carriers that outrun some DDs in ~1918. Second to last is the "low" purpose-built AV conversion: This is meant to be equivalent to the legacy rebuilds in terms of speed and torpedo protection. It has a total design and build cost of 20,319. Maintenance costs are 105/month. Finally, this is the same as the above conversion but when you relax the splinter armour requirement: Total design and build costs are just shy of 19,000, but it can be built in only 22 months - you can theoretically have purpose-built CVLs in 1918. The CA and BC conversions are relatively cheap, but the plane capacity is really only enough for 1 strike group and half a fighter group at most. It's not enough to stand up to even a purpose built CVL, so at best it's a bit of spotting support (and an AV or tone-alike can do that better). The predread conversions are better, but they cost almost as much as the lighter AV conversion and have around 10 less planes. When you factor in the scrapping cost, the only advantage for keeping a predread is that you have the ships a year earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on May 16, 2019 19:40:26 GMT -6
Incidentally, one thing I would like to see is the ability to auto-generate superstructure. I'm no artist, and it's kind of immersion-breaking to see my carriers still sailing around with cruiser superstructure and no flight deck. Same. I tried autogenerating the superstructure using the usual tool but then the game bugs out and seems to forget it's a conversion, but can't figure out the ship's displacement, dropping the displayed tonnage to 50. |
|
|
|
Post by dougphresh on May 16, 2019 20:08:06 GMT -6
Generating superstructures would be great. It’s how I design all my ships. I cycle through templates until I find one I like and then I design the propulsion, armour and armament.
With CVL conversions I’ve just been drawing a rectangle, it’s jarring.
|
|
snwh
Full Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by snwh on May 16, 2019 20:20:09 GMT -6
I can make an ok-ish looking one, but things like drawing the superstructure around the funnels is rather hard. The X-Y thing at the bottom can help a lot though. as can turning down your mouse sensitivity and zooming in. I've heard you can also edit the points in the ship design files manually as well.
I've always drawn my own superstructure for my ships, so I enjoy making carrier superstructures well enough. It would help if there were a few more tools, but overall, I just think its gonna be a learning process is all. Could be wrong
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 16, 2019 22:40:12 GMT -6
I can make an ok-ish looking one, but things like drawing the superstructure around the funnels is rather hard. The X-Y thing at the bottom can help a lot though. as can turning down your mouse sensitivity and zooming in. I've heard you can also edit the points in the ship design files manually as well. I've always drawn my own superstructure for my ships, so I enjoy making carrier superstructures well enough. It would help if there were a few more tools, but overall, I just think its gonna be a learning process is all. Could be wrong You can use "s" key for snapping, it helps me with carriers a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by elouda on May 16, 2019 23:17:02 GMT -6
You can also use "d" to undo the last point, which is very useful.
|
|
