|
Post by ramjb on May 23, 2019 6:24:48 GMT -6
pre-WW1 light and cruisers used 6'' as standard for the most part. Germans were a notable exception (And they soon realized how wrong they were, so they rearmed most of their cruisers with 6'' as soon as WW1 started).
That you get an exception as the "norm" and try to pass a completely stupid argument under that just underlines who doesn't want to give up a lost argument. Next thing you'll do is to bring a handful of british scouting protected cruisers here to try to mount an argument over them having 3'' guns only and saying they'd be destroyers in WWII. Which is as stupid as the rest of retorted arguments you're bringing here.
Again, ships like those would've been labelled as "gunboats" in WWII ,and be done with it. Nothing with speeds under 30 knots would be thought as a destroyer to begin with, which is pretty obvious.
As for anyone being an idiot, here, I'll leave it to others to decide, and for you to use ad hominems.
"So in essence what you are saying is that the game should also not allow DDs with more than a few 3-4" guns"
Again inventing arguments where they don't exist. I never said that. What I'm saying is that the game should not allow classifications that don't correspond to the proper role the ship fullfits.
You can keep on inventing words and putting them on my mouth, or going to extreme stupid examples to excuse whatever personal fetish you have with wanting a 14000 ship that covered exactly the same roles as their 8'' siblings did labelled as Light Cruisers, it will change nothing because you don't get it, don't want to get it, or even if you get it you don't like it: the game does things the way it does for extremely good reasons.
I've already explained to you that historical standards were varied, in most cases weird, and that there already was enough trouble during the Treaty Discussions to get everyone on the same page of what was what (which is exactly which led to the absurd differentiation between Light and Heavy cruisers to be based around gun caliber only). There were instances of completely ludicrous designations here and there that made no sense even while the fleets involved tried to push those beyond any realistic consideration. Standarizing all those under a common class system that every followed took many hours of debate, negotiation and dealing during the treaty days, because EVERY NAVY HAD THEIR OWN STANDARD.
And if the game was to account for every one of those, we'd still be playing RtW1 for years.
For the game to accomodate to every ludicrous (And plainly wrong) classification that happened historically, it' would need an obnoxiously complex and inordinately bothersome classification system. Which is just dumb to go for especially for a small developer team like RtW has.
Instead what the standard the game uses for ship classification, that makes perfect sense within the scope of historical design progression during the first half of the XX Century, is the role the ship is going to cover and the parameters ships with that role historically had.
While that doesn't account to real world "classifications" it only doesn't because those real world classifications were based on a different standard which at times made little to no sense in real, material terms.
You can argue all you want about whatever the US Navy or the RN classed their Clevelands and Towns like: the game is telling you that those ships were fleet cruisers, had fleet cruiser paramaters and qualities, that they were VERY different from things like an Atlanta or an Arethusa, and that in-game you have to design and class them according to the role, not to whatever random classification historical navies used, so the game handles the ship properly.
Things are as this for many reasons (making sense for one) but foremost, so the designers don't become schyzophrenic coming with a proper classification system that works hands to hands with the dynamic game creator system at the time of producing battles, makes sense from a design standpoint, and accounts for the extremely questionable (From a practical standpoint) classification system navies of the time used vs the very practical principle of classing things by the role they covered.
Again, asking for a Cleveland being available to design as a CL in game is as stupid as demanding the Alaska class to be a Heavy Cruiser. Whatever the navies of the time called them is besides the point -what mattered is what those ships WERE, not what they were CLASSED AS, so that the game puts them in battles and roles where they make sense.
TL:DR: you can build clevelands in game. Go build them as CAs, which is what they were, whatever they were called like.
|
|
|
Post by pedroig on May 23, 2019 6:31:31 GMT -6
Y'all are going in circles for no real reason.
1. History of an Era and the Game Mechanics of an Era do not need to match up exactly.
2. History says a nation can call whatever ship anything they want, so as long as it abides by any enforced Treaty.
3. The game mechanics wants you defining a ship by a role, and then subjecting limitations to that role, overly simplistic definitions:
DD - Light, fast, scout which can take down unarmed merchants and finish off/surprise larger vessels with torpedoes. Also a vital ASW and AA cog as the game progresses. CL - Light, fast, raider/escort, can take down DD's, CL's, and lay mines. Primarily gun heavy platforms, with some notable exceptions. Armour can withstand DD fire, but that is about it. Vital AA platform later in the game. CA - Fleet "all rounder". Needs to be able to take care of DD's and CL's that get too close, have to be able to take on other CA's, and is nice if they can at least give a BC or B pause. (Basically a CA should be a "Fast B" 15-20 years prior) B - Early battle line ship. Needs to be able to take a beating and give it out. BC - CL speed, CA armor, BB guns BB - Evolving battle line ship. Early it becomes the death of all not BB due to armor and gun calibre, by 1920 one has to choose between "Fast BB's", "Tank BB's", and "Glass Cannon BB's" AV - Scout platform CVL - Scout and CAP platform CV - Strike and CAP platform
4. Utilizing ships outside those roles will be substandard. Making a "heavily armoured", light gunned, quick CA will find itself owning in CL/DD match ups, but lacking in CA/BC/B/BB match ups where it's best bet will be to run away.
5. Comparing ships classification through different eras is pointless, even with game mechanics. a 1900 DD is no match for any reasonable 1920 DD, for that matter a 1900 CL might not even be a match for a 1920 DD.
So RELAX Francis, the game is based on History, not replicating it. Have fun with the mechanics we have to work with and don't worry too much about the history we still debate about.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 23, 2019 6:59:01 GMT -6
You can keep on inventing words and putting them on my mouth, or going to extreme stupid examples to excuse whatever personal fetish you have with wanting a 14000 ship that covered exactly the same roles as their 8'' siblings did labelled as Light Cruisers, it will change nothing because you don't get it, don't want to get it, or even if you get it you don't like it: the game does things the way it does for extremely good reasons.And what is this "extremely good reason" that the game does not classify historical Light Cruisers like the 70% of the Classes I listed with over 10000 tons displacement that were historically built? Please enlighten me, because I cannot see any good reason beyond your not very solid "because I think so". So: What are your amazingly good reason why historical light cruisers you design should be called heavy cruisers? Please share them because so far you haven't been able to formulate any. Virtually all CLs built historically after 1940 had either a displacement above 10000 ton or belt armor above 3". I apologize for wanting to build historical ships in a game about historical ships, that is apparently in your view a great sin that must be punished.
|
|
|
Post by warlock on May 23, 2019 7:10:37 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? I am feeling the same way about "Super Cruisers" or "Big Gun Cruisers" like the Alaska, Japanese Super Cruiser Type A, the Stalingrad and a few other designs that really didn't make it in before the end of the war. Some classify these ships as BC today but they were woefully under-armored for that role with armor schemes designed only to repel up to the standard 8 inch guns used on most traditional Heavy Cruisers of the time. The game for some reason lets me build CA's with 12 inch guns in 1900 but in 1950, I can't build a CA with anything larger than a 10 inch gun which is kind of frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by director on May 23, 2019 7:32:45 GMT -6
Guys, you are arguing over apples and oranges. Indeed you are going in circles. The sand is pounded, the horse is most assuredly not merely dead but pulpy. You are talking past each other. It IS an ex-parrot. The Naval Treaties classified cruisers by gun size (8" or less, 6" or less). This was a unique, one-time classification never used before. All other cruiser classification schemes, such as the British 1st, 2nd and 3rd class ratings, were by tonnage. The game had to pick one; it makes no sense to program in Treaty cruiser-classification when it ignores Treaty limitations on numbers and total tonnages permitted by type. Makes more sense 'in-game' to classify by tonnage; end of argument. We have used both systems in the modern world; I give you the USS Little Rock, variously known as CL-92, CLG-4 and CG-4. How else to explain a 'cruiser' with no guns or no gun larger than 5" rated the same as a ship with 6" guns, or - as has been mentioned - frigates and destroyers the size of WW2 cruisers? My only real concern is whether the game uses CAs in some missions but limits other missions to CLs and below, as RtW1 did. alexbrunius - "So: What are your amazingly good reason why historical light cruisers you design should be called heavy cruisers? Please share them because so far you haven't been able to formulate any." He is doing so in-game because that is the way the game classifies ships. You would not do so outside the game because the historical real-world did not classify those ships in that way.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 23, 2019 7:38:04 GMT -6
I am feeling the same way about "Super Cruisers" or "Big Gun Cruisers" like the Alaska, Japanese Super Cruiser Type A, the Stalingrad and a few other designs that really didn't make it in before the end of the war. Some classify these ships as BC today but they were woefully under-armored for that role with armor schemes designed only to repel up to the standard 8 inch guns used on most traditional Heavy Cruisers of the time. The game for some reason lets me build CA's with 12 inch guns in 1900 but in 1950, I can't build a CA with anything larger than a 10 inch gun which is kind of frustrating. Assuming it carried over from RTW1, you have to be a little leery of what you can do with the legacy fleet compared to later years. For the legacy and early fleet designed before you get too far up the tech tree, some exceptions for the design rules were implemented to allow unusual historical designs. So something that might be legal in a 1900 ship design would get flagged by changing definitions of ship classes in the later game. For game purposes Alaska should be included in the battlecruiser class. They followed a similar philosophy to the original "dreadnought armored cruisers" of the Invincible and Indefatigable-classes. It was the Lion-class that significantly upgraded size and armor looking to directly support the battle line and changed the Anglo definition of what a battlecruiser was.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 23, 2019 9:12:38 GMT -6
And what is this "extremely good reason" that the game does not classify historical Light Cruisers like the 70% of the Classes I listed with over 10000 tons displacement that were historically built? That those 10000+ton ships you listed fulfitted heavy cruiser roles. For one. And that the game for practical purposes and sake of simplicity uses a way to class ships that differ from those that ended up in a 15000 ton cruiser being called "light" for no other mystic reasons that those ships had 6'' guns instead of 8'' ones (an hypotetical historical cleveland with 4x2 8'' turrets with the same hull, displacement, and armor layout, would've been a heavy cruiser. How does that go for making any freakin sense?) That you don't want to see it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. It does, it's logic, it works within the game frame, and if you don't like it's your own bloody problem. I'm done here, others are completely right. You're going in circles and I'm wasting my time trying to make you get out of the blasted circle. Again, if you want clevelands in game, go and design them. Under the CA tab, which is the one that correctly represents the characteristics, role, and usage those ships saw in real life. Case closed.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 23, 2019 9:19:51 GMT -6
Virtually all CLs built historically after 1940 had either a displacement above 10000 ton or belt armor above 3". I apologize for wanting to build historical ships in a game about historical ships, that is apparently in your view a great sin that must be punished. The US Navy considered its 10,000t 8" cruisers to be "light cruisers" until the 1930 Treaty of London created a distinction between cruiser types based purely on gun caliber and limited the number of 8" cruisers that the signatory powers were permitted to have. All the ships of the Pensacola, Northampton, and Portland classes as well as the first couple of ships of the New Orleans class originally received CL-XX hull numbers; they only became 'heavy' cruisers and were reassigned CA-XX hull numbers in mid-1931. Where's my historical late-'20s to early-'30s 10,000t 9-10x8" American light cruiser? It's a CA in the game? But that just wasn't done until mid-1931! Clearly this game's terrible and we ought to picket the developers' and publishers' offices until such travesties are corrected!
Or, you know, we could get on with life and accept that the game tries to be more concerned with capability and fleet role than with fairly arbitrary historical definitions. The fleet role filled by a ~10,000t (or larger) 12-15x6" cruiser like Cleveland or Belfast has more in common with that of the fleet role of an 8-10x8" ~10,000t (or larger) cruiser like Pensacola or London than with the fleet role of a ~5,000-8,000t 6-9x6" or 8-16x5" cruiser like Arethusa or Atlanta; the protection afforded the larger 6" cruiser also has more in common with the similarly-large 8" cruiser than with the smaller 5" and 6" cruisers. If the distinction between a "light" and a "heavy" cruiser were made on an evaluation of capability rather than on a fairly arbitrary definition written into a couple of very important treaties, do you believe that something like Belfast would be considered to be closer to ships like Dido and Arethusa, or do you think it might instead be considered closer to something like York and London?
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 23, 2019 9:45:51 GMT -6
do you believe that something like Belfast would be considered to be closer to ships like Dido and Arethusa, or do you think it might instead be considered closer to something like York and London?As a matter of fact, that would be unfair for York or London. The York and County classes not only had worse armor, the Belfast had 4/6 more guns, and a fairly large per gun and (obviously) absolute rate of fire advantage. Either class would've been trounced by a Belfast. Yet who's the heavy cruiser there?. That's how much sense historical classifications based on the London Treaty make. Very well written post, btw, and it perfectly sums up almost every point I made in a much more concise way .
|
|
|
Post by director on May 23, 2019 10:01:16 GMT -6
Also, remember that the 'Brooklyn' class hull was used for an 8"-gunned cruiser (USS Wichita) and as the design basis for the Cleveland and Baltimore classes. aeson - "Or, you know, we could get on with life and accept that the game tries to be more concerned with capability and fleet role than with fairly arbitrary historical definitions." I could not say it better; I did say so, but at greater length.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 23, 2019 10:32:09 GMT -6
That those 10000+ton ships you listed fulfitted heavy cruiser roles. For one. No they didn't. Most of them fulfilled the role of CLAA or similar with lots of DP 6" and 5" guns. I can understand your point when it comes to one off unique ship classes like the Alaska ( Although CA isn't even the same as "large cruiser", they were actually classified as CB-1 through CB-6 to be honest here ). But when 13 out of 15 historical Light Cruiser designs in the WW2 and later era from the top 3 major naval power in game will be classified as CA, then something is fundamentally wrong with the way the game choose to classify ships.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 23, 2019 10:38:47 GMT -6
That those 10000+ton ships you listed fulfitted heavy cruiser roles. For one. No they didn't. Most of them fulfilled the role of CLAA or similar with lots of DP 6" and 5" guns. Then Baltimore is a light cruiser. Because that's exactly what that class did too. BTW there were no 6'' DP mounts operational in WW2. The first viable ones were the ones in the Worcester class, and that one didn't come until years after VJ day. Not even the british 5.25'' DP mount proved good enough for the task - theoretical reload couldn't be matched in practice, turret train and elevation speeds were far too slow, it was so unsatisfactory that the british went on to build a couple Didos with 4,5'' DP mounts instead.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 23, 2019 10:58:45 GMT -6
BTW there were no 6'' DP mounts operational in WW2. Call them what you want. The 6" guns on Cleveland class saw extensive use during WW2 against aircraft, and even had shells with VT fuses designed for them! www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-47_mk16.php
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on May 23, 2019 11:00:06 GMT -6
But when 13 out of 15 historical Light Cruiser designs in the WW2 and later era from the top 3 major naval power in game will be classified as CA, then something is fundamentally wrong with the way the game choose to classify ships. Looking at your list from last page, I'll ignore the post-1950 Tiger for being outside the 1900-1950 time period, those under 10k tons (which you agree are classified properly), and combine the Brooklyn/St. Louis and Cleveland/Fargo classes (which were basically identical). Let's consider the remaining. Mogami Class CL 1935 ( 3.9 inch belt, 5.5 inch over magazines, 11000 ton ) -> Only considered CL due to treaty restrictions, got re-classified as CAs after Japan abandoned the treaties and up-gunned them. Oyodo Class CL 1943 ( 2.4 inch belt, 11000 ton ) -> This was designed with the primary role of supporting submarine flotillas. No surprise that something that specialized fits poorly into a standardized class system. Brooklyn Class CL 1937 ( 5 inch belt ,11000 ton ) -> 15x6" guns is a heck of a lot of metal in the air for a CL. It looks like these were called CLs for treaty reasons, but were really closer to CAs. Cleveland Class CL 1942 ( 5 inch belt, 12000 ton ) -> This seems like a fair cop. These were seemingly designed as jumbo-sized CLs, though like the other Treaty-dodgers, that might be argued. Worcester Class CL 1948 ( 5 inch belt, 16000 ton ) -> Post-WW2 designs were always a bit different, but calling these CLs is fair, and they're way over 10k tons. Town Class CL 1937 ( 4.5 inch belt, 12000 ton ) -> Like the Mogami and Brooklyn, these were CLs by treaty standards only, and were consciously designed as CA imitators. Crown Colony Class CL 1940 ( 3.5 inch belt, 10700 ton ) -> These were down-sized Towns, designed as wartime emergency ships. I could go either way on this one, but it's not egregious. So out of the 13 uniques you listed, you agree that five are classified properly with a 10k ton limit, and one is outside RTW2's timeframe. Of the remaining seven, three were consciously designed as CAs that got called "CL" under the treaty, one was an oddball that defies easy classification, one is arguable, and two seem wrong. In other words, of the 11 that we should expect to be able to classify, at least 8 are classified by RTW2 in the same way that their designers thought of them, and arguably as many as 10. That seems like a pretty good track record to me. Certainly not worth too much complaining.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 23, 2019 11:01:00 GMT -6
BTW there were no 6'' DP mounts operational in WW2. Call them what you want. The 6" guns on Cleveland class saw extensive use during WW2 against aircraft, and even had shells with VT fuses designed for them! www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-47_mk16.phpSo did the 18'' guns of the Yamatos. Yamatos should be classed as CLs too.
|
|