|
Post by nuclearmoose on May 20, 2019 16:53:09 GMT -6
I was in the process of building my newest BB/BC design weighing in at 60000 tones but after I looked at the cost (230000 for the BB) it just seemed like a waste. For the same cost I can have a CVL and a CV with some money left over. So my question is do surface ships have diminishing returns the later you get into the game or is it just that these large ships are just a waste and I should stick to smaller ships. I'm currently in the year 1940 and I never played RTW 1 so i'm kinda lost, so far building the biggest ships possible worked.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on May 20, 2019 17:15:11 GMT -6
once you get carriers with lots of ship killers they become the main workhorse of your fleet, but you still need a few fast BB/BC to keep the enemy away from your carriers, especially since i noticed i never directly control my carriers, i'm always controlling my battleships i'm only in 1925 in my first RtW2 game so don't know the end-game, but chances are you can get away with 1 BB or BC for every 2-4 carriers - right now i'm planning 4 BB and 10-12 carriers when i finally get CVs + naval strike aircraft
as for ship size, armour likely won't be able to hold up so much later on so don't be afraid to lower it to practical cost levels - if your guns are big and you hit first you don't need armour as much
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 20, 2019 17:56:29 GMT -6
The main difference between carriers and battleships/battlecruisers is that carriers are not all weather weapon platform. During day, carriers rules but at night, mist, rain they are useless.
|
|
|
Post by nuclearmoose on May 20, 2019 18:19:45 GMT -6
Thank you for the answers but I do want to clarify that I had no intentions of scraping my entire surface fleet. My question is there a point where building the biggest Capital ship possible is inefficient and I should build smaller BBs/BCs and reinvest that money in CVs instead.
|
|
|
Post by HolyDragoon on May 20, 2019 18:24:42 GMT -6
My last BC class was around 45k tons. While planes are very good to put the hurt on things, I reckon using a force of BC really helps to soften your targets up for the airstrike, or vice-versa, by finishing off what the airstrike left still floating.
While I don't recommend you to get to that size unless you're playing the USA (I had... what, 6 inches of deck armour?), having a small force of decent BCs can really be a help in equalizing things until carriers can come into play or if they can't launch planes at all.
|
|
|
Post by thesovietonion on May 20, 2019 18:25:22 GMT -6
I'm in 1936 and I just started converting my first generation BC's into fast carrier escort BB's. No idea if it will work or not, but it should be neat to keep these smaller tonnage ships in use.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 20, 2019 19:44:15 GMT -6
once you get carriers with lots of ship killers they become the main workhorse of your fleet, but you still need a few fast BB/BC to keep the enemy away from your carriers, especially since i noticed i never directly control my carriers, i'm always controlling my battleships
Which makes sense. Yamamoto was aboard Yamato in Midway. Halsey's flag was aboard New Jersey at Leyte . Anyway - that's never a problem. Once your main punch shifts from the big guns to the egg droppers and fish lobbers you can get things sorted out easily. By default one of your CV formations will in "support" role of the main surface unit (where your flagship is). The other CV formations (if any) will be with "core" role, following the lead of the already mentioned CV squadron. All you have to do is to change that lead CV squadron's role from "Support" to "Core", just as you would do with a battlesquadron that's following your lead battleship squadron. The CV formation will sail towards your flag squadron (it'll be obviously faster if you turn your flagship towards your CVs), and drag all the other CVs with it. End result is a neat line of CVs besides my proud battleships. Of course if you sail your whole formation into the wind it'll be even better, as that way you avoid having to keep track of all the time the flattops have to do it themselves to conduct carrier ops. Once the sun sets, change the order to "support" again to let the CV sail away from the Battleline. It won't be healty for them if a night battle happens and they turn out to be next to the big guns. I've fought entire carrier fights this way in the mediterranean as AH once I had strong enough carriers. Or rather, I've fought whole battles that way (the only CV the italians ever had...let's say it enjoyed a very short life XD). Bombarding missions have never been as easy, alphastrike the location with an air attack, and then go hunt whatever recon picks up is sailing around.
|
|
|
Post by deeznuts on May 20, 2019 19:53:28 GMT -6
personally i find late game that you can build very powerful fast battleships relatively cheap, in the 1930's i managed a relatively cheap 46,000 ton 30 knot heavily armoured fast battleship mounting 8 17 inch guns in an all forward layout, perfect for defending my much much more expensive carriers.
|
|
|
Post by captaincoxwaggle on May 20, 2019 20:01:47 GMT -6
With a solid battleline and good AA tech in the 1935-1940's airstrikes rarely are able to approach a battleship in an AA blob.
The large battleships do offer a fairly considerable advantage against opposing battleships, especially since they will typically survive and can be repaired and returned to service.
32knt Battlecruisers are also great for running down and sinking carriers, and getting a tasty bonus VP for the aircraft as well.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 20, 2019 20:06:14 GMT -6
once you get carriers with lots of ship killers they become the main workhorse of your fleet, but you still need a few fast BB/BC to keep the enemy away from your carriers, especially since i noticed i never directly control my carriers, i'm always controlling my battleships
Which makes sense. Yamamoto was aboard Yamato in Midway. Halsey's flag was aboard New Jersey at Leyte . Anyway - that's never a problem. Once your main punch shifts from the big guns to the egg droppers and fish lobbers you can get things sorted out easily. By default one of your CV formations will in "support" role of the main surface unit (where your flagship is). The other CV formations (if any) will be with "core" role, following the lead of the already mentioned CV squadron. All you have to do is to change that lead CV squadron's role from "Support" to "Core", just as you would do with a battlesquadron that's following your lead battleship squadron. The CV formation will sail towards your flag squadron (it'll be obviously faster if you turn your flagship towards your CVs), and drag all the other CVs with it. End result is a neat line of CVs besides my proud battleships. Of course if you sail your whole formation into the wind it'll be even better, as that way you avoid having to keep track of all the time the flattops have to do it themselves to conduct carrier ops. Once the sun sets, change the order to "support" again to let the CV sail away from the Battleline. It won't be healty for them if a night battle happens and they turn out to be next to the big guns. I've fought entire carrier fights this way in the mediterranean as AH once I had strong enough carriers. Or rather, I've fought whole battles that way (the only CV the italians ever had...let's say it enjoyed a very short life XD). Bombarding missions have never been as easy, alphastrike the location with an air attack, and then go hunt whatever recon picks up is sailing around. Yamato with Yamamoto was over 300 miles behind Nagumo on 4/5 June 1942. Even at 21 knots, it would have taken him over 15 hours to reach him. That was or would have been far too late. Especially since our carriers were another 120 miles or thereabouts NE of Nagumo. Lot of good that big battleship was. USS New Jersey was screening the carrier force at Leyte, which means they were either in front of them, or right next to them.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 20, 2019 20:19:57 GMT -6
And Cunningham had his flag aboard a 15'' gunned battlewagon during the Tarento attacks. Yet it's not as if Warspite, Malaya or Valiant sailed up into Tarento's harbor firing left right and center, did they?. Because they kept well clear of the action, close enough to support the carrier force, but not an inch closer than necessary. They didn't take part in the action - yet the RN's flagship for the Tarento raid still was a battleship. That's what I'm trying to explain. Not that those big gunned ships did anything worthwhile during those battles - just that they were there...and they were the place where the commanders were giving the orders. I didn't say nor implied anything about those ships being useful or taking any active role in the respective battles I mentioned - my whole point is that having your flag aboard the biggest gunned capital ship during a carrier battle, and commanding it from there, is not only completely fine according to historical events... It's that it was the norm. Also it means that in the game that your flagship is a surface unit doesn't mean you have to charge into the enemy head first with it. You make the carriers stay close to your command, and let them do the heavylifting while your big BB does nothing but sail around... Exactly as commanders of the time did .
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 20, 2019 20:29:37 GMT -6
And Cunningham had his flag aboard a 15'' gunned battlewagon during the Tarento attacks. I guess you'll argue how useless his presence was?. Because yes, it's not as if Warspite, Malaya or Valiant sailed up into Tarento's harbor firing left right and center, did they?. They didn't take part in the action - yet the RN's flagship for the Tarento raid still was a battleship. The point is that never said anything about those ships being useful in the respective battles I mentioned - my whole point is that having your flag aboard the biggest gunned capital ship during a carrier battle, and commanding it from there, is not only completely fine according to historical events... It's that it was the norm. Does it make sense to attach a 27 knot battleship to a carrier force that can do 31 knots especially to launch aircraft? That's why Yamato wasn't with Nagumo. The attack on Taranto was at night, the 11th of November to the 12th. The Swordfish attacked by flying 170 miles AT NIGHT to arrive specifically at 12 midnight. So, in this case, a sneak attack, having a slow 24 knot battleship made no real difference. If you are attacking in daylight, with your carrier force, you need to have about the fastest ship that you have. The carriers when launching will go to maximum speed, turn into the wind and launch, the rest of the force will have to keep up with them. Now, once they have launched the deck strikes, most likely two, then they will head to the rendezvous point previously designated and given to the air wing. They will maintain speed to get to that point as fast as they can. OK. Keep in mind that the Pacific War was divided into two periods. The first consisted of the four major carriers battles. After those four battles, there were essentially no other battles until the Mariana's and by that time our doctrine had changed completely. Our carrier now had over 36 fighters and later 64. Their job was to gain air supremacy of the islands during invasions. The Mariana's were not much of a carrier battle and after that it was over. So be careful drawing conclusions about the Pacific War and applying them. In the Mediterranean Sea, the sea war was a whole different type of combat. it was more land based aircraft against task forces attempting to supply Malta. There were no carrier battles. The carriers were just supplying air cover and once in a while, attacking land bases on Sicily but mostly on the North African coast. It was an enclosed sea and that made a big difference. I am not arguing with you, just trying to point out some vital clues. Enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 21, 2019 1:59:56 GMT -6
Does it make sense to attach a 27 knot battleship to a carrier force that can do 31 knots especially to launch aircraft? That's why Yamato wasn't with Nagumo. The attack on Taranto was at night, the 11th of November to the 12th. The Swordfish attacked by flying 170 miles AT NIGHT to arrive specifically at 12 midnight. So, in this case, a sneak attack, having a slow 24 knot battleship made no real difference. If you are attacking in daylight, with your carrier force, you need to have about the fastest ship that you have. The carriers when launching will go to maximum speed, turn into the wind and launch, the rest of the force will have to keep up with them. Now, once they have launched the deck strikes, most likely two, then they will head to the rendezvous point previously designated and given to the air wing. They will maintain speed to get to that point as fast as they can. OK. Keep in mind that the Pacific War was divided into two periods. The first consisted of the four major carriers battles. After those four battles, there were essentially no other battles until the Mariana's and by that time our doctrine had changed completely. Our carrier now had over 36 fighters and later 64. Their job was to gain air supremacy of the islands during invasions. The Mariana's were not much of a carrier battle and after that it was over. So be careful drawing conclusions about the Pacific War and applying them. In the Mediterranean Sea, the sea war was a whole different type of combat. it was more land based aircraft against task forces attempting to supply Malta. There were no carrier battles. The carriers were just supplying air cover and once in a while, attacking land bases on Sicily but mostly on the North African coast. It was an enclosed sea and that made a big difference. I am not arguing with you, just trying to point out some vital clues. Enjoy. You're assuming I'm saying those BBs were sailing literally next to the carriers in those instances. They didn't. They were in separate squadrons well apart from the carrier force, coordinating the battle from the rear (which is what naval commanders usually did in carrier engagements). Doesn't change the fact that those BBs STILL were their respective force's Flagships. Not the carriers. "Does it make sense to attach a 27 knot battleship to a carrier force that can do 31 knots"?. Don't ask me, ask the world leaders in carrier warfare in 1944-45 if it made sense to put their 27 and 28 knot 16'' gunned battleships close to their 31 knot Essex carriers, or not. Because that's EXACTLY what they did each time one of them was around ,and is what led to South Dakota being the only american ship damaged of any importance during the whole battle. South Dakota was only marginally faster (if faster at all) than Yamato, yet it was in the thick of the action acting as AAA escort for the carriers. Then again South Dakota wasn't the flagship of 5th Fleet. That was another ship, which I'll talk about later, and that ship with Spruance on board was behind the main carrier forces...but yeah, 27 knot battleships operating next to carriers. Seems it made sense, given how the american fast battleships spent the day acting as mobile AAA barrage barriers to keep the japanese planes away from the carriers. A couple of Iowas were there, those were good for 32 or 33 knots...but the South Dakotas and North Carolinas were there too, and those were good for 27-28 knots tops, and were sailing with the carriers too. Not it wasn't the first time either, in the guadalcanal carrier battles americans had already deployed their fast BBs the same way and there were no Iowas around yet, and the american BBs were used close to the carriers to give them AAA cover. There are some pretty dramatic photos of South Dakota (27 knots) during the japanese attack on Enterprise (31 knots) in the Santa Cruz engagement around to prove it. So, answering your question, it seems it made A LOT of sense to attach a 27 knot battleship to a carrier force that can do 31 knots, indeed. "The marianas were not much of a carrier battle and after that it was over": Well for not being a CV battle there "only" were a total of 24 carriers involved, between fleet and light carriers, and between both sides. It "only" was the biggest one that ever happened. As for after that being over you know that now. Not the americans at the time - the japanese still had a strong carrier force afterwards, at that moment there was no way to know at the time it'd prove impossible for the japanese to put them back in action with enough planes again (to the point that during Leyte the japanese fleet carriers were vital in distracting the american ones and leaving the invasion forces without their air cover); to the point that Spruance got a lot of flak for not being more agressive in trying to completely anihilate the japanese carrier force. And BTW, and while we're at it... The commander of the american side during the Phillipine Sea (Adm. Spruance, CiC 5th Fleet) flew his flag aboard Indianapolis...a heavy cruiser. Not aboard a carrier, furthering my point about the game being spot on in not giving CVs the flagship status in the in-game battles, given that flagships rarely were CVs during WW2 carrier battles. Because, once again, that's the only point I'm really trying to make here - that when you spawn in a battle in the game where you have carriers yet your flagship is NOT a carrier is not a fluke, a bug, a problem or strange. Is exactly what is supposed to happen... and that such a fact doesn't mean you have to use your big gun ships to seek and force a surface action, you can go back and use them close to the carriers, exactly as was done in real life (to give close AAA coverage and act as a shield against any surprise from enemy surface forces).
|
|
|
Post by southkraut on May 21, 2019 2:13:02 GMT -6
My only RtW2 campaign so far was as Germany, starting in 1900. I continuously pushed my dock size and had the luck to unlock 20in guns in the 1920s; in 1928 I began constructing an 82500-ton, 2x4x20in armed Battlecruiser capable of doing 31 knots. 13in belt armor, 4in deck armor. Throughout the early 1930s, it eliminated entire fleets with impunity and brought Russia and Japan to heel. Cruisers were lost, lesser battleships and battlecruisers were lost, but that monster just powered through until it constituted well over half of my fleet tonnage. Japan did not surrender, though, and fielded increasing numbers of land-based planes. And, oh history, there we go, predictably they ended up throwing a giant crowd of anti-ship planes at it, sunk it, and all of a sudden I was left without a fleet.
|
|
|
Post by namuras on May 21, 2019 2:45:29 GMT -6
In my current game i ran into the problem that i had carrier supremacy at sea, but almost nothing left of other capital units (5 25kn BBs with 16" and a 2 or 3 30kn 14" BCs, all outdated). I thought that to have a couple of heavy 16k 8" armed AA and floatplane CAs combined with 5" DP CLs supported by DD swarm would be enough. Especially since i think i had an edge in radar tech.
Thing is i knew these ships held nothing against the hordes of 12x 10" CA monstrosities the AI build or their 16" BCs. But i thought all is well with my CVs. So i had to relearn that my CAs and CLs didn't realy deter the enemy in bad weather. The CVs got away due to high speed, but well...
So i figured i needed something to "hold the line" and started tinkering with what could be called Supercruisers. 12" or 13" armed "small" BCs or CBs as some might call them. After mulling over it for a while i ended up with something that can best be described with a South Dakota / North Carolina clone. 48k tns with 3x3 16" guns, 27 knots and bristling with AA guns. Yes they are slower than the CVs, but they can withstand fire and are still fast enough to stop most anything that comes at it. I tried building what would be considered an Iowa clone, but my docks where too small to be able to make my NoCal clones go 31 knots.
So basicaly: yes, you will want something that can take hits while your CVs run. And CA / CL are nice AA escorts, but they won't stop whatever CA / BC the AI throws at you in the late 40s
The only downside to this is: i can build almost 2 CVs with 100 planes each for each of these escort BBs. CVs also build in 24 months instead of 30 months compared to the BBs.
|
|