|
Post by yousyokumarimo on May 21, 2019 10:00:14 GMT -6
Why limit 3 inch armor which Light cruiser? Mogami class、Brooklyn class、Town class have more thick armor.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 21, 2019 10:15:29 GMT -6
Why limit 3 inch armor which Light cruiser? Mogami class、Brooklyn class、Town class have more thick armor. All those were heavy cruisers. Maybe not in name because of the (otherwise quite dumb) standards of the London treaty that differentiated them, but it's what they were in practice. Mogami's was immediately reclassed as a heavy cruiser just by swapping main weapons (And leaving them woefully unprotected, 25mm of face armor was paper even for 5'' destroyers). MEanwhile the first batch of american 8'' cruisers were classified as "Light Cruisers" until the London treaty made things go dumb, because they had paper thin armor. A ship displacing what a Brooklyn or a Town, with the armor they carried, was in every way a heavy cruiser. And in fact in game you DO see them...this is not a design of mine, but the AI: Does that layout look familiar? . In-game CLs are intended to be the true CLs of the time: Atlantas, Didos, Kumas, Condottiere, etc. Not the WW2-like 6'' Heavy Cruisers, which you can build...but as heavy cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 22, 2019 6:59:32 GMT -6
In-game CLs are intended to be the true CLs of the time: Atlantas, Didos, Kumas, Condottiere, etc. Not the WW2-like 6'' Heavy Cruisers, which you can build...but as heavy cruisers. Atlanta Class had 3.5 inch belt, meaning they would be classified as CA in game if I understand things correctly. The Dido is just on the limit with 3 inch exactly. The most numerous CL class ever built ( Cleveland ) had up to 5 inch belt armor...
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 22, 2019 9:17:19 GMT -6
Atlanta class had 3.5 inches besides the magazines, but the belt tapered down elsewhere. In game unless you click magazine box, the ship will carry a 3'' non-tapering main belt, meaning you get a bit less protection for magazines, but better for the rest. A more than worthy tradeoff.
And the numerous CL Class ever built (Cleveland) was NOT a light cruiser, except on the name. Call if what you want, a cruiser displacing 12000 standard is not "light". The only reason got that name was because after the london treaty it had become commonplace to class cruisers by the size of their guns only...which was both shortsighted and dumb. If you want in-game clevelands, open the designer and build a CA with a four triple 6'' turrets.
|
|
|
Post by blackvoid on May 22, 2019 13:05:07 GMT -6
While we are on topic of CLs.
I tried to replicate GB Minotaur AA cruiser design. 10 6" DP guns in 5 turrets. Magnificent ship.
Game kept putting them into forward screen vs CV escorts. They got crushed in the screen role.
Is there any way to make game put heave AA ships into CV screen?
|
|
|
Post by janxol on May 22, 2019 15:19:14 GMT -6
Atlanta class had 3.5 inches besides the magazines, but the belt tapered down elsewhere. In game unless you click magazine box, the ship will carry a 3'' non-tapering main belt, meaning you get a bit less protection for magazines, but better for the rest. A more than worthy tradeoff. And the numerous CL Class ever built (Cleveland) was NOT a light cruiser, except on the name. Call if what you want, a cruiser displacing 12000 standard is not "light". The only reason got that name was because after the london treaty it had become commonplace to class cruisers by the size of their guns only...which was both shortsighted and dumb. If you want in-game clevelands, open the designer and build a CA with a four triple 6'' turrets. As far as I know protection for magazine is the same with and without box armor. It's just the rest (machinery) that get halved, saving on weight. Since you cant use that weight by going over 3 in, the magazine protection of all 3 in CLs would be the same, box or not. It would be nice if using box armor would allow to go higher on the belt. Maybe 4 or 5 inches.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 22, 2019 16:29:38 GMT -6
I think that 3" belt armour is quite important for cruisers. It cannot help against 6" guns in short range but during day you can fight from large distance and during night it is important to have some protection against destroyers with 4" and 5" guns.
I have just finished night battle with USA. I have 2 small cruisers (3x2x6" guns), 4 destroyers (4x2x4" guns) and USA had 3 cruisers (6x1x6", 3x3x6", 4x2x6") and they were completely demolished, sinking 2 cruisers. There were only 3 torpedo hits, 1 on my cruiser, 2 on my destroyer pursuing enemy cruiser, quickly sinking.
The destroyers did quite a job with their 4" guns as they hits quickly destroyed 2 triple turrets on one cruiser and 4 single turrets on the second cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 23, 2019 2:00:30 GMT -6
And the numerous CL Class ever built (Cleveland) was NOT a light cruiser, except on the name. Call if what you want, a cruiser displacing 12000 standard is not "light". The only reason got that name was because after the london treaty it had become commonplace to class cruisers by the size of their guns only...which was both shortsighted and dumb. If you want in-game clevelands, open the designer and build a CA with a four triple 6'' turrets. You may not think the Cleveland was a light cruiser. Everyone else does. Ships growing larger by tonnage as time goes on is part of the natural development. Heck the destroyers of today like the Zumwalt-Class have a similar or greater tonnage to WW2 Light cruisers ( which in turn have similar tonnage to 1890s era Battleships ). The question is if this is modeled in the game somehow, and if it's not maybe it should?
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 23, 2019 2:29:31 GMT -6
"You may not think the Cleveland was a light cruiser. Everyone else does."
Opinions do not change facts, I'm afraid.
13000 ton cruisers with 12x6'' can't justifiably be called "Light" cruisers with a straight face in a world and time where true light cruisers (Didos, Atlantas, Aganos, the like) were displacing roughly half of that.
The whole thing is very simple: Cruisers of the time were classed by gun size, because, and only because, the London Treaty way of restricting 8'' gun cruisers. So we have cases like the US reclassing an 8'' cruiser class from "light" to "heavy" just because of it's guns even when the ships had paper maché instead of armor, or the Japanese doing a snap-the-finger-reclassification with the Mogamis just by switching triple 6'' mounts for 8'' duals, keeping the rest of the ship the same.
The game allows you to build Clevelands, it just demands you to call them "heavy Cruisers" which, was, in practice, what they were. You can't ask the game to accomodate for innapropiate, dumb, or downright stupid real life classifications just because you want to have a Cleveland classed as CL. That classification made no sense in a world where Cleveland displaced as much as a Deutchland did.
You can't ask the game to class the Cleveland as a CL as much as you can't ask the game to be forced to class Alaska as "CA" only because the americans wanted to call it "large cruiser" when for all that matters those things were battlecruisers. The game has to draw a line somewhere in it's own way to handle ship classification, and the way it does it is sensible and makes sense. Could it be A BIT more flexible?. Maybe. But not to the extent to call a ship that by the end of the war displaced almost 16000 tons at full load "light cruiser" when it's everything but one, whatever the caliber of its TWELVE main battery guns are.
Ship classification was largely unstandarized after WWII and by 1970 it was a mess. Nations began classing ships for their role, not for their displacement. You have soviet cruisers which were smaller than their contemporary destroyers, justified by the main role of those ships, not because of displacement.
But the game doesn't cover the 1970s...much less the 2010s. Whatever we call TODAY a Zumwalt has absolutely no effect nor is in any way relatable to what navies of 1950 classed their ships like.
Finally, yes, this is modelled in the game. Until 1928 you can't get a CL that displaces more than 8000 tons. After 1928 you can get CLs up to 10k displacement. That's as far as it goes, makes sense, and again, abstracts and compromises to represent the absolute mindblow that was how ships were classed by their navies in real life, something the game can't be demanded to do (much less when it's written, coded, and designed by a 3 man team).
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 23, 2019 2:40:14 GMT -6
"You may not think the Cleveland was a light cruiser. Everyone else does." Opinions do not change facts, I'm afraid. Exactly, So why don't you respect the fact that every serious naval historian or mention of the Cleveland class, from wikipedia to the most detailed works of Norman Friedman classify them as a light cruiser which is also what they were historically classified as during WW2? Instead you bring out a clear opinion of yourself as argument disregarding all facts: "13000 ton cruisers with 12x6'' can't justifiably be called "Light" cruisers"
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 23, 2019 2:48:11 GMT -6
"You may not think the Cleveland was a light cruiser. Everyone else does." Opinions do not change facts, I'm afraid. Exactly, So why don't you respect the fact that every serious naval historian or mention of the Cleveland class, from wikipedia to the most detailed works of Norman Friedman classify them as a light cruiser which is also what they were historically classified as during WW2? Instead you bring out a clear opinion of yourself as argument disregarding all facts: "13000 ton cruisers with 12x6'' can't justifiably be called "Light" cruisers" It's their legalistic definition, the product of London treaty which divided heavy and light entirely based on bore of their gun. Definitely serious naval historians have remarked that the new breed of big "London" lights that started from Mogamis were effectively heavy light cruisers. I don't really take issue representing them as "CA" in the game.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 23, 2019 2:50:48 GMT -6
Naval authors and writers relay historical information. Those ships were included in the navy lists as light cruisers, and given CL-XXX numbers. The same they call Alaska a Large CRuiser, and not a battlecruiser. Navies of the time did that, they have to inform the reader accordingly.
Does not change the fact that those ships in practice were not what they were called. Which those authors, btw, go out of the way mentioning too in their works.
So tell me, exactly what does qualify the Mogamis as "Light" Cruisers, in practice (not in London Treaty theory) when they had 15x6'', when they were called "heavy" when they got less guns of 8'' caliber?. The rest of the ship remained the same.
Tell me, should we be allowed to qualify a 9000 ton 8'' cruiser as "Light Cruiser" in game?. Because the americans did just that with the Pensacola.
That class later reclassed as a CA as part of the London Treaty agreements ,but it WAS classed as a Light Cruiser initially. Should I open a thread them claiming for the game to allow me to do the same?. After all, a real historical navy did it.Right?.
Should I go around opening threads claiming that the developer should allow us to design 30000 ton, 12'' armed, 32 knot heavy cruisers?. The americans did it historically, right?. That's how it is according how you interpret "Facts"...in Friedmans' they come as Large Cruisers too, so they must be allowed as CAs in game.
It makes absolutely no sense. The same it does not for a Cleveland or a Town class.
Again and I'm insisting on something I already stated: Ship classification was not standard in 1930 (and is much worse nowadays). One of the biggest issues the Washington and London treaties had to deal with was to even DEFINE what each class was ,because each navy had their own ways to classing ships, before defining which the limits for each class actually were. It was that bad.
You can't demand the game to accomodate to all that without falling into schizophrenia. What the game does is to define class by roles and traits, and leave it at that. Does that cover EVERY ship that was afloat in the first half of the XX century?. No. Does it do a good PRACTICAL job of represent what those ships actually WERE (regardless how they were called or classed)?. Yes.
That's it, and that's enough. That you have a fetish for the CL- designation doesn't mean a ship that is a heavy cruiser in everything should be classed as CL in-game. The same you don't get Alaskas into the CA designation.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 23, 2019 4:17:30 GMT -6
But the game doesn't cover the 1970s...much less the 2010s. Whatever we call TODAY a Zumwalt has absolutely no effect nor is in any way relatable to what navies of 1950 classed their ships like. Actually it does have an impact, because it drives home that the definitions are flexible and ever increasing in tonnage. A 2500 ton CL launched in 1900 would probably be classified as a DD if it was launched in 1945 instead, right? It's the same thing. Finally, yes, this is modelled in the game. Until 1928 you can't get a CL that displaces more than 8000 tons. After 1928 you can get CLs up to 10k displacement. So based on history it would make a bit more sense to increase that limit even more when we get closer to WW2, otherwise hardly any historical CL fit the limits of the game at all.. Something like up to 6" of belt and 12000 tons displacement after 1935, perhaps increasing to 16000 ton in 1945 would make most historical light cruisers commissioned by all the Major navies in this period still classify as CL ingame. Below is a list of all 15 Classes of Light Cruisers commissioned near or after WW2 by the worlds 3 major Naval powers, and in that list only two of them would be classified as a CL by the game. Don't you see a problem here? Mogami Class CL 1935 ( 3.9 inch belt, 5.5 inch over magazines, 11000 ton ) Agano Class CL 1942 ( 2.4 inch belt, 7000 ton ) Oyodo Class CL 1943 ( 2.4 inch belt, 11000 ton ) Brooklyn Class CL 1937 ( 5 inch belt ,11000 ton ) St Louise Class CL 1939 ( 5 inch belt, 12000 ton ) Cleveland Class CL 1942 ( 5 inch belt, 12000 ton ) Atlanta Class CL 1941 ( 3.5 inch belt, 7200 ton ) Juneau Class CL 1946 ( 3.5 inch belt, 7800 ton ) Fargo Class CL 1945 ( 5 inch belt, 13000 ton ) Worcester Class CL 1948 ( 5 inch belt, 16000 ton ) Town Class CL 1937 ( 4.5 inch belt, 12000 ton ) Dido Class CL 1940 ( 3 inch belt, 6500 ton ) Crown Colony Class CL 1940 ( 3.5 inch belt, 10700 ton ) Minotaur Class CL 1944 ( 3.5 inch belt, 8800 ton ) Tiger Class CL 1959 ( 3.5 inch belt, 11700 ton )
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 23, 2019 5:35:21 GMT -6
a) A 1900 cruiser would've never been called a destroyer in WW2. 6'' main guns (probably) plus slow speed - it'd been a gunboat at best.
b) no I don't see a problem with it, mostly because you're using top data only.
1-The Atlantas for instance, and I already mentioned it before , only had 3.5'' of protection abreast a part of it's magazines. Machinery areas were covered by 3'' or less, and the rest of the belt was even thinner down to simple splinter protection. In-game that's abstracted as a 3'' belt that averages it out- a perfectly good compromise in a game that can't get too much more complicated for a 3-man team.
Most of the ships on this list are listed with that fault, btw. You're listing the stronger area of protection (abreast magazines) but give not a slight hint that the rest of those ships belts weren't that thick elsewhere. Again, the game gives an AVERAGE for the belt. Which suddenly mean that a lot of the ships in that list qualify in game as CLs.
2-The Oyodo wasn't a Light Cruiser. It was a weird Cruiser-Floatplane carrier hybrid. I just modelled it in-game as an AV - as long as you keep belt under 3'' belt armor it allows for both 6'' triples and going over 10k ton limits. Again we see how the game class system works: it classes ships by traits and roles, and the ship can be prefectly modelled in there.
All the rest of the ships you mentioned, with the only exception of Tiger (which was an abomination of a design forced by the extremely tight economy post-WWII budgets, otherwise it'd never been built in that guise), were by own and right role they fullfitted heavy cruisers that only were labelled "light" because the London Treaty convention of naming anything with guns bigger than 6'' "heavy cruiser" even when it wasn't.
So design them as heavy cruisers in game, as is the way the game handles those ships. It's not that hard to understand, really.
Once again, and I'm repeating myself for the 3rd? 4th? time?. The game doesn't label classes following an historical convention wich was flawed enough as to state that a 6000 ton ship with six 6'' guns and enough armor to fend off 4'' guns was of the same class than a 13000 ton one with twelve guns and armor designed to keep 6'' shells out.
The game lategame class standard labels and treats classes following the convention of their given roles:
DD: well...dd CL: AA Cruisers, Destroyer Leaders, Colonial trade protection cruisers, etc. CA: Fleet cruisers, Heavy commerce raiders. BC/BB: Capital ships.
Design your ships and class them according to the role. The game class system is designed and standarized for roles, not following an historical model that was essentially flawed at the time of properly class ships according to their REAL capabilities, and not by the shallow or dumb only and exclusive consideration about wether those ships were armed with 6'' guns or bigger ones.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 23, 2019 5:50:43 GMT -6
a) A 1900 cruiser would've never been called a destroyer in WW2. 6'' main guns (probably) plus slow speed - it'd been a gunboat at best. You simply don't know when you lost an argument long ago and need to stop now do you? Here is a good example of a 1900 light cruiser ( Commissioned exactly 1900 ): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazelle-class_cruiserIt was armed with 10x4 inch (10.5cm) guns just like almost all other German Light cruisers of the pre-WW1 era. It displaced 3200 ton full load. Now compare that to the Allen M Sumner class DD: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_M._Sumner-class_destroyerIt was armed with 6x5 inch (12.7cm) guns ( Not because it couldn't fit more, but because AA was a higher priority ) It displaced 3515 ton full load. As for speed being different for a ship 45 years more modern running on oil instead of coal, well duh, massive surprise there ( But that has nothing to do with the argument, and is already modelled well by the game ). no I don't see a problem with it, mostly because you're using top data only. 1-The Atlantas for instance, and I already mentioned it before , only had 3.5'' of protection abreast a part of it's magazines. Machinery areas were covered by 3'' or less, You can do a similar thing in RTW2, for example give your Cruiser 4 inch of Belt and tick in "Magazine Box". Want to know what happens then? Your cruiser gets classified as a heavy cruiser because the game only care about your top armor thickness! ( Which is why that is what I listed ). Even disregarding armor, by displacement alone 10 out of 15 Classes get disqualified as Light Cruisers despite historically having that classification. Do you not have a problem with this? All the rest of the ships you mentioned, with the only exception of Tiger (which was an abomination of a design forced by the extremely tight economy post-WWII budgets, otherwise it'd never been built in that guise), were by own and right role they fullfitted heavy cruisers that only were labelled "light" because the London Treaty convention of naming anything with guns bigger than 6'' "heavy cruiser" even when it wasn't. Well the reason why we call things what we call them isn't important. If the reason was important then we would be screaming that the "Destroyers" can't fulfill their namesake role of "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" because there are no Torpedo boats in RTW2 and then we would also be arguing that destroyers should be removed or at the very least renamed to something else like "Submarine hunter" or "Light screen" or something... But that would not feel right, now would it? Just like having all historical Light cruisers you try and make in RTW2 being named Heavy Cruisers doesn't feel right. Once again, and I'm repeating myself for the 3rd? 4th? time?. The game doesn't label classes following an historical convention wich was flawed enough as to state that a 6000 ton ship with six 6'' guns and enough armor to fend off 4'' guns was of the same class than a 13000 ton one with twelve guns and armor designed to keep 6'' shells out. So in essence what you are saying is that the game should also not allow DDs with more than a few 3-4" guns because and of tonnage more than 1000 because that's how they were armed and made in the year of the lord 1900? That's exactly the same thing. I mean clearly the Allen M Sumner class was a Light Cruiser instead, it's just the USN and everyone else that were idiots when they came to ship classification, right?
|
|