|
Post by gurudennis on Aug 19, 2021 15:56:20 GMT -6
I regularly build fairly large CAs with three triple turrets forward - either 8" or 10", depending - and add two catapults in the 3-4 position dead aft, a seaplane hangar and 6-8 seaplanes for scouting. Once missiles come in I can scrap the catapults and aircraft and add SAM launchers aft for about the same weight. How expensive a CA are we talking? Three triple 10" plus decent speed plus let's say 5" armor plus 6-8 planes equals what, 20-25K tons at least?
|
|
|
Post by liam556 on Aug 19, 2021 17:49:59 GMT -6
I regularly build fairly large CAs with three triple turrets forward - either 8" or 10", depending - and add two catapults in the 3-4 position dead aft, a seaplane hangar and 6-8 seaplanes for scouting. Once missiles come in I can scrap the catapults and aircraft and add SAM launchers aft for about the same weight. Wait, you can build cruisers with more than 4 seaplanes? How? Everytime I try to do that the game demands I classify it as an AV.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Aug 20, 2021 1:32:01 GMT -6
There is an (IMO artificial) additional effect for "heavy" guns in game, i.e. for 11inch+ guns. This is not really reflected in the "public" stats but IME an 11inch gun has about 150% to 300% (very situational spread) the effective performance of a 10inch gun. I think this is due to a "critical hit" modifier.
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Aug 20, 2021 3:13:38 GMT -6
There is an (IMO artificial) additional effect for "heavy" guns in game, i.e. for 11inch+ guns. This is not really reflected in the "public" stats but IME an 11inch gun has about 150% to 300% (very situational spread) the effective performance of a 10inch gun. I think this is due to a "critical hit" modifier. I'd like to try and quantify this. Say take 2 identical cruisers, one with 8x10" and the other with 6x11". If there's any unusual premium on the 11", it should win much of the time when pitted against the other one-on-one.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Aug 20, 2021 7:08:58 GMT -6
There is an (IMO artificial) additional effect for "heavy" guns in game, i.e. for 11inch+ guns. This is not really reflected in the "public" stats but IME an 11inch gun has about 150% to 300% (very situational spread) the effective performance of a 10inch gun. I think this is due to a "critical hit" modifier. I'd like to try and quantify this. Say take 2 identical cruisers, one with 8x10" and the other with 6x11". If there's any unusual premium on the 11", it should win much of the time when pitted against the other one-on-one. The problem is in the statistics. You need an awful lot of "runs" to verify. That is too much like work.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 20, 2021 9:12:16 GMT -6
I'd like to try and quantify this. Say take 2 identical cruisers, one with 8x10" and the other with 6x11". If there's any unusual premium on the 11", it should win much of the time when pitted against the other one-on-one. The problem is in the statistics. You need an awful lot of "runs" to verify. That is too much like work. Its honestly more that the 10” gun is awful in terms of penetration and fire rate compared to its size
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Aug 20, 2021 10:36:07 GMT -6
Its honestly more that the 10” gun is awful in terms of penetration and fire rate compared to its size Penetration doesn't matter much in CA warfare. Anything greater than 7" penetrates any reasonable CA armor at most ranges. The rate of fire of 11" guns is lower than that of 10" guns. The former is also much heavier and it's shells are heavier, too, which makes it more expensive to equip. On the flip side, heavier shells do more damage. This is why I'd like to know more about the supposed artificial damage buff for 11"+.
|
|
|
Post by arminpfano on Aug 20, 2021 13:19:04 GMT -6
I mostly find it more efficient to build 2 or 3 fast baby-BCs with 6 x forward 11" or 12". They are able to sweep any CL or CA with ease, and the other nations do not build them, because the AI thinks its better to build the biggest BC available only...
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Aug 20, 2021 15:09:40 GMT -6
I regularly build fairly large CAs with three triple turrets forward - either 8" or 10", depending - and add two catapults in the 3-4 position dead aft, a seaplane hangar and 6-8 seaplanes for scouting. Once missiles come in I can scrap the catapults and aircraft and add SAM launchers aft for about the same weight. Wait, you can build cruisers with more than 4 seaplanes? How? Everytime I try to do that the game demands I classify it as an AV.
Here's a snap-shot of an early experimental ship I built in my last development game. Is this ship a great idea? Of course not, but this is just trying something different. You'll also get to see something of where we're at in testing DLC beta #54, with commanders and ship histories prominent.
In this 1890-start game I had just developed large sea-plane carriers but as Japan I doubted what I could do with them with my terrible float-plane range with ordinance (300lbs bomb at a heavy range of 44 miles) so I postponed any plans. A large modern BC I could use however so I started playing around with designs.
Now one of the new construction rules has to do with TPS, where-in you are initially limited from Triple or Quad turrets in the A and Y positions because the extra space required for those larger batteries inhibits the available space needed for early torpedo protection. I also wanted to avoid the extra mass of the super-firing positions, so I wondered what a C/L/W would look like. I then thought I'd draw a visible base for the W (despite not wanting barbette weight) and after doing so I thought 'huh, I wonder how many floatplanes I could fit on this...'. Discovering the answer was 18 I decided here was my experimental ship, attempts to be a carrier and be armored enough to be close to the fighting and carry guns to attempt to participate. Delightfully mediocre on all counts.
By the way, no it doesn't really need on-deck torpedo tubes, but I like using them to shunt secondary batteries into more interesting positionings. And the deck is clearly a liability, I would expect a comeuppance due any day. Even if plunging fire can be mitigated by how I use them operationally, in an age of decent airpower a mere 2" is just begging for trouble.
Note the commander is real winner, no wonder he's kept the job for 7 years; he's found someplace comfortable and is milking it!
As a last note, at present the ship's logs record surface action only, there is no record of what a ship's planes have done. Officially these ships have twice been given orders to launch strikes on enemies but achieved no hits.
|
|
|
Post by liam556 on Aug 20, 2021 19:07:28 GMT -6
I regularly build fairly large CAs with three triple turrets forward - either 8" or 10", depending - and add two catapults in the 3-4 position dead aft, a seaplane hangar and 6-8 seaplanes for scouting. Once missiles come in I can scrap the catapults and aircraft and add SAM launchers aft for about the same weight. Wait, you can build cruisers with more than 4 seaplanes? How? Everytime I try to do that the game demands I classify it as an AV. It appears the limit of floatplanes you can have on a non AV is 7 now.
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 20, 2021 21:01:40 GMT -6
Had I checked the ship before I posted I would have said 6. I prioritize floatplane searches and use them for that. In later years when they have SAM armament they make excellent carrier escorts.
With 9x8" or 9x10", a secondary battery of 14 to 16 guns and 8 torpedo tubes they are also very good night-fighters.
|
|
|
Post by cogsandspigots on Aug 20, 2021 22:34:41 GMT -6
Wait, you can build cruisers with more than 4 seaplanes? How? Everytime I try to do that the game demands I classify it as an AV.
Here's a snap-shot of an early experimental ship I built in my last development game. Is this ship a great idea? Of course not, but this is just trying something different. You'll also get to see something of where we're at in testing DLC beta #54, with commanders and ship histories prominent.
In this 1890-start game I had just developed large sea-plane carriers but as Japan I doubted what I could do with them with my terrible float-plane range with ordinance (300lbs bomb at a heavy range of 44 miles) so I postponed any plans. A large modern BC I could use however so I started playing around with designs.
Now one of the new construction rules has to do with TPS, where-in you are initially limited from Triple or Quad turrets in the A and Y positions because the extra space required for those larger batteries inhibits the available space needed for early torpedo protection. I also wanted to avoid the extra mass of the super-firing positions, so I wondered what a C/L/W would look like. I then thought I'd draw a visible base for the W (despite not wanting barbette weight) and after doing so I thought 'huh, I wonder how many floatplanes I could fit on this...'. Discovering the answer was 18 I decided here was my experimental ship, attempts to be a carrier and be armored enough to be close to the fighting and carry guns to attempt to participate. Delightfully mediocre on all counts.
By the way, no it doesn't really need on-deck torpedo tubes, but I like using them to shunt secondary batteries into more interesting positionings. And the deck is clearly a liability, I would expect a comeuppance due any day. Even if plunging fire can be mitigated by how I use them operationally, in an age of decent airpower a mere 2" is just begging for trouble.
Note the commander is real winner, no wonder he's kept the job for 7 years; he's found someplace comfortable and is milking it!
As a last note, at present the ship's logs record surface action only, there is no record of what a ship's planes have done. Officially these ships have twice been given orders to launch strikes on enemies but achieved no hits.
"Sink test" Now what is that?!
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Aug 20, 2021 23:02:14 GMT -6
"Sink test" Now what is that?! I don't know but I'd hate to take that test!
|
|
|
Post by yobeefjerky on Aug 21, 2021 2:33:10 GMT -6
Late game, usually quad-spam, even on CLs (if I edit the ship design file), quads for days baby! ABXY quads, ABY quads, AB quads, XY quads, it doesn't matter, I love them all!
|
|
|
Post by arminpfano on Aug 21, 2021 7:36:23 GMT -6
I want quintuple turrets!!
Seriously: I am wondering if technological development would have lead to this point, if the age of BB had lasted longer. With torpedo tubes it was very similar and lead to this point (or where there more than five tubes per mount?)
maybe oldpop: are you aware of some research or development about quintuples?
|
|