|
Post by cogsandspigots on May 17, 2019 6:24:43 GMT -6
I haven’t gotten a chance to see if this is true, as the demo doesn’t include the timeframe I’m talking about, but will we see evolutions in the requirements for a ship to be a “CL”? While 3” belt and 8000 ton limits is appropriate for the 1920s and earlier, with things like Emerald, Omaha, Emden, etc., it’s wholely inappropriate for the late 1920s and 1930s, when ships like the Leipzig, Town, and Brooklyn blow right past those requirements. And even more so in the 40s, when Cleveland is nearly 12,000 tons and has a 5 inch belt.
So, in a few words, will the requirements on belt and displacement be loosened for CLs in the 30s and onwards?
|
|
|
Post by wurstsalat on May 17, 2019 6:26:40 GMT -6
I haven’t gotten a chance to see if this is true, as the demo doesn’t include the timeframe I’m talking about, but will we see evolutions in the requirements for a ship to be a “CL”? While 3” belt and 8000 ton limits is appropriate for the 1920s and earlier, with things like Emerald, Omaha, Emden, etc., it’s wholely inappropriate for the late 1920s and 1930s, when ships like the Leipzig, Town, and Brooklyn blow right past those requirements. And even more so in the 40s, when Cleveland is nearly 12,000 tons and has a 5 inch belt. So, in a few words, will the requirements on belt and displacement be loosened for CLs in the 30s and onwards? Actually The 8000 ton limit (i dont knwo about the armor) but CL classification changes in 1928 (it says when you try to design a bigger CL)
|
|
|
Post by dougphresh on May 17, 2019 13:41:40 GMT -6
Maybe it could be adjusted depending on treaties?
Once you factor in triple mounts, more torps, a floatplane or two, 8000 starts to look very small indeed
|
|
|
Post by garychildress on May 17, 2019 13:57:03 GMT -6
In RTW1 there were dynamic changes to the requirements as the game evolved. For example, BBs get an increase in speed. Before a certain point in time if a BB went over 23-24 knots (or something there abouts), you had to reclassify it as a BC. Later in the game the classifications evolve to fit the time period. I'd be surprised if similar dynamic changes to requirements for other ships aren't present in RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 17, 2019 14:00:27 GMT -6
In RTW1 there were dynamic changes to the requirements as the game evolved. For example, BBs get an increase in speed. Before a certain point in time if a BB went over 23-24 knots (or something there abouts), you had to reclassify it as a BC. Later in the game the classifications evolve to fit the time period. I'd be surprised if similar dynamic changes to requirements for other ships aren't present in RTW2. yeah id expect them to change slowly too (also were u get that profile pic it looks dank as hell)
|
|
|
Post by garychildress on May 17, 2019 14:05:04 GMT -6
In RTW1 there were dynamic changes to the requirements as the game evolved. For example, BBs get an increase in speed. Before a certain point in time if a BB went over 23-24 knots (or something there abouts), you had to reclassify it as a BC. Later in the game the classifications evolve to fit the time period. I'd be surprised if similar dynamic changes to requirements for other ships aren't present in RTW2. (also were u get that profile pic it looks dank as hell) The ship picture was done by Brian (Big B) over at the Matrix Games War in the Pacific forum. The animations I created using Animation Shop, and using art from the game War in the Pacific.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on May 17, 2019 14:24:13 GMT -6
I haven’t gotten a chance to see if this is true, as the demo doesn’t include the timeframe I’m talking about, but will we see evolutions in the requirements for a ship to be a “CL”? While 3” belt and 8000 ton limits is appropriate for the 1920s and earlier, with things like Emerald, Omaha, Emden, etc., it’s wholely inappropriate for the late 1920s and 1930s, when ships like the Leipzig, Town, and Brooklyn blow right past those requirements. And even more so in the 40s, when Cleveland is nearly 12,000 tons and has a 5 inch belt. So, in a few words, will the requirements on belt and displacement be loosened for CLs in the 30s and onwards? Additional 1-2k tons and looser limits on armour would be good indeed, to get the bigger CLs of 1930s.
As for Towns, Brooklyns, Clevelands etc the argument can be made they are functionally identical to heavy cruisers. Yes, they carry 6in guns, but with amount of them and armour they have, CA classification in game should apply. After all, in game, 3x6in turret could be rebuilt at any time into 2x8in one (just like Mogami were rebuilt).
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 17, 2019 14:58:34 GMT -6
Light/heavy cruiser distinctions in real life were pretty much shenanigans anyway, and in most cases were meaningful only under treaty definitions.
The already mentioned Mogamis stopped being CLs and began being CAs just by swapping main batteries being only one of the instances. The US Baltimores being Cleveland hulls with 9x8'' instead of 12x6'' bain batteries being another one. The british line of wartime CLs were hardly justified in being called "light cruisers" when with that kind of weaponry they utterly dwarfed a pre-war York class, for instance.
Then we do have the true "light cruisers", justified by size and armor, not just by main weapons. Arethusas, Didos, Atlantas, all the Japanese CLs, some italians...but for the most part, historically, the "top end" ships of the "CL" classification were heavy cruisers in everything but name.
This usually is the starting point of many an interesting debate I've seen online about how the 8'' gun limitation in the WT actually hurt cruiser development, because until almost the 40s technology wasn't evolved enough to produce anything fast enough for a cruiser role that would be qualifiable as anything but a tincan while sporting 8'' guns in any decent numbers (more than six) and within 10.000 tons of standard displacement, ending in terribly imbalanced ships with woeful protection unless some really serious cheating was involved (like the japanese), until the late 30s where some pretty good ships with 8'' mains came around (Zaras, Algeries, New Orleans).
after the treaties stopped applying of course the 10k ton limit became meaningless but even then it's hard to judge what was better for cruiser roles, if a Cleveland or a Baltimore...being exactly the same ship with just different main battery both are roughly equals in most regards, at least judging by wartime experience.
Which kinda means that the costs and compromises demanded by putting 8'' caliber guns weren't worth it for cruisers. The fever to put 8'' guns in cruisers happened only because of the WT, and the result was almost a full generation of pretty questionable ships, when 6'' gunned ones would've offered much better design compromises. At least until technology was good enough to allow your 8'' gunned cruiser to be protected by more than testimonial armor...and even then equivalent ships in size fared at least as good with smaller 6'' guns in larger numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on May 17, 2019 15:08:52 GMT -6
Note that when navies started building large 6" cruisers again in the 30s, they put the savings into adding barrels rather than armor. And a 6x8" 10kt ship could have mounted respectable armor if they wanted caliber and armor, but none were built (or even seriously considered, to my knowledge). I think the lack of armor just came down to design priorities--navies preferred an underarmored cruiser to an undergunned one.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 17, 2019 15:20:18 GMT -6
(also were u get that profile pic it looks dank as hell) The ship picture was done by Brian (Big B) over at the Matrix Games War in the Pacific forum. The animations I created using Animation Shop, and using art from the game War in the Pacific. thanks
|
|
snwh
Full Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by snwh on May 17, 2019 16:18:16 GMT -6
Light/heavy cruiser distinctions in real life were pretty much shenanigans anyway, and in most cases were meaningful only under treaty definitions. The already mentioned Mogamis stopped being CLs and began being CAs just by swapping main batteries being only one of the instances. The US Baltimores being Cleveland hulls with 9x8'' instead of 12x6'' bain batteries being another one. The british line of wartime CLs were hardly justified in being called "light cruisers" when with that kind of weaponry they utterly dwarfed a pre-war York class, for instance. Then we do have the true "light cruisers", justified by size and armor, not just by main weapons. Arethusas, Didos, Atlantas, all the Japanese CLs, some italians...but for the most part, historically, the "top end" ships of the "CL" classification were heavy cruisers in everything but name. This usually is the starting point of many an interesting debate I've seen online about how the 8'' gun limitation in the WT actually hurt cruiser development, because until almost the 40s technology wasn't evolved enough to produce anything fast enough for a cruiser role that would be qualifiable as anything but a tincan while sporting 8'' guns in any decent numbers (more than six) and within 10.000 tons of standard displacement, ending in terribly imbalanced ships with woeful protection unless some really serious cheating was involved (like the japanese), until the late 30s where some pretty good ships with 8'' mains came around (Zaras, Algeries, New Orleans). after the treaties stopped applying of course the 10k ton limit became meaningless but even then it's hard to judge what was better for cruiser roles, if a Cleveland or a Baltimore...being exactly the same ship with just different main battery both are roughly equals in most regards, at least judging by wartime experience. Which kinda means that the costs and compromises demanded by putting 8'' caliber guns weren't worth it for cruisers. The fever to put 8'' guns in cruisers happened only because of the WT, and the result was almost a full generation of pretty questionable ships, when 6'' gunned ones would've offered much better design compromises. At least until technology was good enough to allow your 8'' gunned cruiser to be protected by more than testimonial armor...and even then equivalent ships in size fared at least as good with smaller 6'' guns in larger numbers. pretty fascinating breakdown there. makes me think a lot about what I want to do with my own cruisers. considering they're my favorite class of ships. Though I was mainly thinking of light cruisers with 12 or more 5" guns, I have no idea what I want to do for heavy/armored cruisers. In rtw1 it felt like theyw ere completely obsoleted by BC's, and I rarely built them after a point. But I kinda want to make some in rtw2, if only because I like them.
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on May 17, 2019 16:21:57 GMT -6
I often built CAs late-game--as BCs cross the 30kt line you can never have as much of them as you want, and CAs can make easy work of CL raiders, or make near-invulnerable raiders themselves if kept above BC speeds. Not sure how that will play out in RtW2--I haven't yet seen the cruiser duel with a raider that was so ubiquitous in RtW1.
|
|
|
Post by thesovietonion on May 17, 2019 16:27:30 GMT -6
I've had a few of those duels, and I agree that a faster, cheaper CA still has a place. A 'colonial' battlecruiser, for lack of a better designation IMO.
|
|
|
Post by larryc on May 17, 2019 16:31:42 GMT -6
I see CLs as cheap firepower. A design like Cleveland standardized and produced in numbers. Fills many roles- AA support for task groups, surface action groups, raider hunters, etc. The point is to settle on one design, not tamper with it and churn em out.
|
|
snwh
Full Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by snwh on May 17, 2019 16:43:22 GMT -6
well, in rtw, there's prolly no harm to tampering with it, as long as your still churning out the old one while you tamper. There isn't much of a penalty to designing a new but similar class of ship.
|
|