|
|
Post by dorn on May 15, 2019 1:08:25 GMT -6
Frankly speaking I cannot see point to use it. I would choose each category.
BB/BC - to have double armour on magazine is just to much and excessive. CL - to have double armour on magazine is only possible if belt armour is set 3", so it means belt armour 1.5" making it almost useless CA - there is only sence to use it extensively to protect magazine, however it is quite heavy.
It would be much better if player can add certain amount of armour in that area. What was thinking behind this idea of "double" magazine protection.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 15, 2019 1:57:58 GMT -6
It was only used on cruisers. That being said it should make sense sense on light cruisers too, the 3 inch belt restriction seems bit odd for period in which they had just as thick belts as CAs. Is there actual practical difference in getting "CL" classed as CA?
|
|
|
|
Post by alkiap on May 15, 2019 2:11:32 GMT -6
The point of magazine box armor is to provide reasonable protection to the magazines, in case there is not enough weight allowance for a full belt. With box armor you can have for example 4" protection over the magazines, and 2" of belt over machinery, saving hundreds of tons of weight, and some cost as well.
You should not see it as a way of doubling magazine armor; rather, it's a way of providing protection to the magazines, if you are short on available weight
For example, the British County class cruisers had originally box armor, being limited to 10K tons by treaty
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 15, 2019 2:49:36 GMT -6
It was only used on cruisers. That being said it should make sense sense on light cruisers too, the 3 inch belt restriction seems bit odd for period in which they had just as thick belts as CAs. Is there actual practical difference in getting "CL" classed as CA? This I would expect, however you cannot build more than 3" belt armour around magazine as 3" is limit no matter if magazine box is checked. |
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on May 15, 2019 3:06:57 GMT -6
It was only used on cruisers. That being said it should make sense sense on light cruisers too, the 3 inch belt restriction seems bit odd for period in which they had just as thick belts as CAs. Is there actual practical difference in getting "CL" classed as CA? I don't think the game will let you build a ship that's a CL in all respects other than having >3" belt armor, not even classing it as a CA. I'd have to fire up RtW and the RtW2 demo to check when I get home, but I think if you built a regular CL but upped the belt armor and changed it to a CA you would then run into some other error in the designer. |
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 15, 2019 3:43:46 GMT -6
It was only used on cruisers. That being said it should make sense sense on light cruisers too, the 3 inch belt restriction seems bit odd for period in which they had just as thick belts as CAs. Is there actual practical difference in getting "CL" classed as CA? I don't think the game will let you build a ship that's a CL in all respects other than having >3" belt armor, not even classing it as a CA. I'd have to fire up RtW and the RtW2 demo to check when I get home, but I think if you built a regular CL but upped the belt armor and changed it to a CA you would then run into some other error in the designer. I got errors for mines and above water tubes, but that was it. |
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on May 15, 2019 3:47:07 GMT -6
I don't think the game will let you build a ship that's a CL in all respects other than having >3" belt armor, not even classing it as a CA. I'd have to fire up RtW and the RtW2 demo to check when I get home, but I think if you built a regular CL but upped the belt armor and changed it to a CA you would then run into some other error in the designer. I got errors for mines and above water tubes, but that was it. Oh, cool. Now, I guess the other problem would be that the game would match it up against AI-designed CAs with 8" or 10" guns... |
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 15, 2019 3:50:10 GMT -6
I got errors for mines and above water tubes, but that was it. Oh, cool. Now, I guess the other problem would be that the game would match it up against AI-designed CAs with 8" or 10" guns... Ok, I'll just have fit 15+ 6" guns on them. Suddenly it's not just a cheap fleet scout anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 15, 2019 6:09:09 GMT -6
Oh, cool. Now, I guess the other problem would be that the game would match it up against AI-designed CAs with 8" or 10" guns... Doesn't seem like it, at least in Rule the Waves; the numerous 6" ~6500t CAs that I built as Germany in this game seemed to get matched up mostly against CLs, and when matched up against larger CAs it seemed as though the matchmaker preferred to give me them in the number I'd expect with CLs. The first 6" CL I built in that game was laid down in 1939; all the cruisers I designated as second class cruisers in the images prior to that are CAs. |
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 15, 2019 8:06:30 GMT -6
It was only used on cruisers. That being said it should make sense sense on light cruisers too, the 3 inch belt restriction seems bit odd for period in which they had just as thick belts as CAs. Is there actual practical difference in getting "CL" classed as CA? in game it seems a bit useless due to how powerfull armor is now and how bad guns perform 20 inch guns have 22 inches of penetration at point blank which is just HOW |
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 15, 2019 8:41:35 GMT -6
It was only used on cruisers. That being said it should make sense sense on light cruisers too, the 3 inch belt restriction seems bit odd for period in which they had just as thick belts as CAs. Is there actual practical difference in getting "CL" classed as CA? in game it seems a bit useless due to how powerfull armor is now and how bad guns perform 20 inch guns have 22 inches of penetration at point blank which is just HOW In 1920? Probably not that bad. |
|
