|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 28, 2019 0:57:52 GMT -6
I also find it hard to know and find when ships used Flat/Sloped deck armour or a narrow belt armour. Perhaps someone could tell me roughly when these were used and some example ships that used either or a combination? Armoured cruisers used both sloped deck and flat deck schemes, surprisingly lot of latter actually. At least most of the Japanese ones used the sloped deck though. There's a small armour plan and cross section for most armoured cruisers in recent book called Before the Battlecruiser. Narrow belts were common on Harvey armoured battleships and earlier.
|
|
|
Post by deeznuts on May 28, 2019 5:16:55 GMT -6
Sloped deck is good for when you expect many close up battleship fights, like say the North sea(due to the bad weather) or early on when there’s basically no deck penetration ability and the added belt effectiveness is important, when you get AoN armour though just switch entirely to flat deck, the bonuses of AoN outweigh any possible benefit of sloped deck(especially since gunnery radar will eventually make close duels extremely rare(short of the battle deployment placing the enemy and you right next to each other)
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 28, 2019 5:37:44 GMT -6
I almost always build domestically if I can create a design that looks decent for the type of ship that and the time period when I'm building it. Negative design traits are more what I'd consider mildly annoying than serious impediments, and my impression is that the national characteristic Undeveloped Shipbuilding Industry goes away more quickly if you build more ships domestically (I don't have proof of that, mind, but it's the impression I have).
Also, the national traits that modify construction time - Poor Education (+10% construction time), Undeveloped Shipbuilding Industry (+10% construction time), and Efficient Shipbuilding Industry (-10% construction time) - don't affect the total cost of a ship, which is arguably useful for budget planning since it means that building the ship somewhere with a longer construction time reduces monthly construction costs.
Shopping abroad was a normal thing to do with navies of the time. Most of the russian BBs sunk at Tsushima were built by France, and were shot at by a collection of BBs built at british yards (with the help of some armored cruisers, some of which had been built at Italy...how's that for a cosmopolitan battle? XDDD). Japan kept shopping on the UK until they were halfway done with their Kongos and Fusos. That seriously kickstarted their capital ship building ability that way. If your shipyards are going to give problems because of underdeveloped status, or possible delays during construction (which end up costing a fortune), getting your ships from abroad can only help saving money. As a side-benefit you do get bonuses on techs you don't already have, possibly get ships with design traits you don't own yet that make them better in the long term (shopping in the US is the earliest way to get B superimposed turrets in the game, other than playing US yourself)...and you shave a couple months of building time too. Save your domestic capabilities for smaller vessels (destroyers, light cruisers, the lot) where having a couple extra months of buildtime is not that bothersome, and in ships where one month delays don't cost you 2.5k apiece. Saves you money, keeps your yards working, gives you extra tech, best of all worlds .
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on May 28, 2019 5:46:35 GMT -6
"Most of the russian BBs sunk at Tsushima were built by France" - just out of curiosity: which one?
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 28, 2019 6:47:28 GMT -6
"Most of the russian BBs sunk at Tsushima were built by France" - just out of curiosity: which one? I believe he's referring to the Borodinos. Three were sunk and one was captured. They weren't built by the French, they were built by the Russians but they were based off of the design of the French built Tsesarevich. According their wikipedia page they were intended to be copies of Tsesarevich but because they would use Russian engines and guns (which were heavier and bulkier) they had to be modified and enlarged somewhat to fit. He might be technically wrong on that detail (assuming that was what he was referring to) but his overall point is correct in that the French had a lot of influence on and built a number of vessels for the Russian Imperial navy due to their close relationship and common rival (Great Britain).
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on May 28, 2019 7:13:26 GMT -6
"Most of the russian BBs sunk at Tsushima were built by France" - just out of curiosity: which one? I believe he's referring to the Borodinos. Indeed, I just thought that as novadays the message board in general loves to jump on technicalities, I thought that for once I join the entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on May 28, 2019 7:34:44 GMT -6
Yes... as Japan I go and look at what technologies the other countries have that I don't have and that suits the purpose of the ships I want to build, even if I could potentially build them myself. I keep building the smaller ships myself where I do have up to date technologies to be competitive, especially destroyers with good torpedo technology.
I can also skimp on some technologies and keep them at low and try to get them through building ships in foreign yards. There is a good sound tactic here that are quite realistic.
I keep expanding my yards so I can potentially build my own large ships eventually, but I want good technology and guns before I do so.
Another thing... I know that it is more expensive to have six guns on three turrets rather than six guns on two turrets. I suppose that three turret are good for redundancy and there is a rate of fire penalty to early three gun turrets? What else are the reason for two gun turrets when you can build three gun turrets aside from putting bigger guns into the turrets?
|
|