|
Post by dorn on Jun 2, 2019 5:09:50 GMT -6
I was seriously concerned about this initially. Then came the day when I was able to design ships with 5 in DP guns. By this point, I had a previous generation of 1500t destroyers with 4x2 4 inch DP guns (no penalties). I was able to create the same setup of 4x2 5 inch DP (and no penalties!), but feared that it may lead to another arms race with the AI (not sure if it's an actual thing) - I've seen AI make 4x2 4 in DP setups after I did it... So I've made 3x2 5 in DP 2000t DD. More room for ASW assets... But the AI started doing 4x2 5 in (no DP yet).... and even 4x 6 in (no DP yet) DDs. All 1600-1800t. Definitely with penalties.. _ Arms race is happening after all... I have just found out that you can fit 5x2 6" guns on a 2500t destroyer at a modest -20 RoF penalty, which is almost entirely mitigated by autoloaders. 6x2 is achievable if you put torpedo tubes on the sides, otherwise 40 RoF penalty is a bit too much. Herebye I declare CL obsolete. They are stil superior during daytime as they armour can still defeat 6" shells over 10000 yards easily on both belt and turrets. With 15x6" guns they firepower is still about double. They cost about 40 M. Such destroyers would cost about 10 M. I think both ships would work well, especially light cruiser with several such destroyers. You can even choose not have only 4 turrets and 12x6" guns and have some torpedo protection. In that case during night they are still dangerous as they combination of firepower, torpedoes and torpedo protection is valuable. They are really universal ships.
I used later old cruisers with 6x6" or 8x6" guns and they were still superior much more than modern destroyers.
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Jun 2, 2019 5:22:26 GMT -6
I have just found out that you can fit 5x2 6" guns on a 2500t destroyer at a modest -20 RoF penalty, which is almost entirely mitigated by autoloaders. 6x2 is achievable if you put torpedo tubes on the sides, otherwise 40 RoF penalty is a bit too much. Herebye I declare CL obsolete. They are stil superior during daytime as they armour can still defeat 6" shells over 10000 yards easily on both belt and turrets. With 15x6" guns they firepower is still about double. They cost about 40 M. Such destroyers would cost about 10 M. I think both ships would work well, especially light cruiser with several such destroyers. You can even choose not have only 4 turrets and 12x6" guns and have some torpedo protection. In that case during night they are still dangerous as they combination of firepower, torpedoes and torpedo protection is valuable. They are really universal ships.
I used later old cruisers with 6x6" or 8x6" guns and they were still superior much more than modern destroyers.
It was a joke, really, since you really need those 2" of armour to be protected against splinters, which murder destroyers. However, the possiblity of building 5x6" destroyers is quite a boon, as 6x2 5" gives even bigger RoF penalties, and increases the risk of a magazine detonation a bit more than I would prefer it. That said, I wonder if the larger shell size of 6" guns will make them even more susceptible to flash fires?
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 2, 2019 6:04:25 GMT -6
The 5"/38 also fired a quite short, light shell for its caliber--good for RoF, bad for ballistics. An "average" 5" gun is also going to include weapons such as the British 5.25" and American 5"/54 whose shells were too heavy for rapid manual handling. One of my most-desired features, after a better operational level, is more character for weapons--replace generic weapons with ones with their own idiosyncrasies, such as the fast-firing 5"/38 or the flat-shooting 28 cm SK C/34. I would like to second this comment. In fact, I'd like to see a naval guns procurement process similar to the aircraft procurement process. im in the progress of making a suggestion like this it should be up later on the suggestions topic subforum thing
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 2, 2019 6:10:36 GMT -6
There's a very real difference between gun trials and real in-battle performance, as many navies of the time found out during wartime, or even through fleet exercises. I'm not questioning your numbers about the american 5in DP mount. That thing was just splendid and BY FAR the best DP gun of the war (and to top if off, it was mounted in the best DP mounts of the war, shooting the best projectiles of their caliber of the war, and fired under the best FCS of the war. Talk about a winning combo.). But one has to begin any ongoing conversation about certain things starting from the same page. If you come with max theoretical rate of fire with the turret full of ready to fire ammunition and list the subsequent rate of fire (until the ready to fire ammunition is spent), while I'm listing the max theoretical sustained rate of fire (meaning, the one that the ship can actually keep up without having the turret full of ready-to-shoot rounds) is inevitable that we'll begin with seemingly different numbers (When in reality we're actually on the same page ). The fact remains that the american 5'' DP mount high rate of fire was mostly used against AA threats when sheer volume of fire in the smallest time frame was obviously the way to go. But in surface-to-surface combat that high theoretical rate of fire didn't translate to practical rate of fire in most cases. Depending on the situation those guns would fire much, much slower than their capabilities for simple practical reasons as working proper firing solutions (Spotting fire) and somethign as simple as conserving ammo. In game results will of course always show lower-than-theoretical rates of fire for guns as fast firing as the 5''/38 gun, you don't need to go to the lenght of proving that because not only I'm sure you tested it, but also because it's just understandable that most of the time in practice you don't really want to go full "Rambo" not only for the invitable bouts of spotting shooting where rate of fire doesn't help at all, but also when your ammunition reserves are limited and you don't want to spend them all in 20 minutes flat . Also, remember that the game abstracts many things and gun design is one of them. You have 5'' DP guns in your ship. That's all you know. There were other 5'' DP mounts in WW2. The japanese had one ,for instance, and was nowhere close to the american one in capabilities. The americans used at least three different flavors of 5'' guns during the war with different lenghts and even shells (25 calibers, 38 calibers, 54 calibers), so did other navies, which also had different variants of the gun with very different characteristics. But the game only has one 5'' gun. three, if we factor in "quality" (which only seems to affect penetration values, for all I know). And everyone gets to use THAT gun (or those three). So, which one does the game decide is the 5'' gun it uses?. What does it base the gun on?. Does it simulate it to equal the best naval weapon of it's class in the world (by a wide and large margin), or does it average and blend it with others that were far less capable to give a more wide-ranging cover of what were guns and mounts of that size like in that timeframe?. Obviously is the latter. I for one would like to have a much more complex and involved process of designing, from the gun caliber/lenght ratio, to how many shafts does a warship have, just to name two; but we have to accept that this is a very complex game already and that many things have to be abstracted/simplified to the minimum common denominator so we do have a game to play...and not one in infinite development process for a small team (not to mention the more complex you go, the more bugs that come bite your back, making the process even longer ). sure guns fired slower to preserve ammo and to aim better WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THAT IN GAME we already have a -10 modifier to rof if you have not achieved a straddle or hit on the enemy we already have a -30 modifier to rof if you are low on ammo these things are already modeled but ON TOP of these the rate of fire in game is horribly low i understand some guns of 5 inch fired slowly mainly the japanese but basically every other gun had a much higher rof having atleast a 7 round per minute capabiluty where in game the max is 5 WITHOUT DEBUFFS APPLIED also we arent talking over eachother i stated magazine rof and sustainable rof for the 5 inch sustainable is 15 rounds max is 22 for less than ideal crew before 1930 yes the spotter was not always fast enough to keep up with the reload of the guns in terms of firing solutions but with radar fire and better firecontrol computers and rangefinders this time was shortened significantly to the point most capital ships could fire the second they were loaded and destroyers had above 10 rof (american ones) this is simply not possible to get in game
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 2, 2019 6:16:21 GMT -6
They are stil superior during daytime as they armour can still defeat 6" shells over 10000 yards easily on both belt and turrets. With 15x6" guns they firepower is still about double. They cost about 40 M. Such destroyers would cost about 10 M. I think both ships would work well, especially light cruiser with several such destroyers. You can even choose not have only 4 turrets and 12x6" guns and have some torpedo protection. In that case during night they are still dangerous as they combination of firepower, torpedoes and torpedo protection is valuable. They are really universal ships.
I used later old cruisers with 6x6" or 8x6" guns and they were still superior much more than modern destroyers.
It was a joke, really, since you really need those 2" of armour to be protected against splinters, which murder destroyers. However, the possiblity of building 5x6" destroyers is quite a boon, as 6x2 5" gives even bigger RoF penalties, and increases the risk of a magazine detonation a bit more than I would prefer it. That said, I wonder if the larger shell size of 6" guns will make them even more susceptible to flash fires? I do not know but 6" cruisers are very susceptible and I do not remember when my 5" cruiser blow up after turret hit.
|
|
|
Post by bidius on Jun 2, 2019 15:40:13 GMT -6
6x2 is achievable if you put torpedo tubes on the sides, otherwise 40 RoF penalty is a bit too much. Or you could put the guns on the sides and give it cross-deck firing, I tend to do that with my early DDs to mitigate centerline limits, don't see why it wouldn't work for a 2500 ton.
|
|
|
Post by lukasdietrich on Jun 2, 2019 17:29:14 GMT -6
Late in the game I had a class of DD with 12x 3" DP auto loaders and lots of AA mounts. No torpedoes. They were pretty effective against surface targets and as they were designed excellent AA escorts.
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Jun 3, 2019 3:15:45 GMT -6
6x2 is achievable if you put torpedo tubes on the sides, otherwise 40 RoF penalty is a bit too much. Or you could put the guns on the sides and give it cross-deck firing, I tend to do that with my early DDs to mitigate centerline limits, don't see why it wouldn't work for a 2500 ton. I didn't even think about cross-deck fire on DDs. You, sir, are a monster or a genius, and possibly both.
|
|
|
Post by eaterofsuns on Jun 3, 2019 10:11:33 GMT -6
Or you could put the guns on the sides and give it cross-deck firing, I tend to do that with my early DDs to mitigate centerline limits, don't see why it wouldn't work for a 2500 ton. I didn't even think about cross-deck fire on DDs. You, sir, are a monster or a genius, and possibly both. If you are a Mediterranean power, (short/cramped/speed), and get cross deck fire quickly, it is quite possible to make a 4x4", 2x3" broadside DD and still have plenty of room for torps on a very small frame. That is my go to second DD design if I can build them, as having DD's with 2x the throw weight of AI ones in the early era is just murder at sea.
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Jun 3, 2019 12:17:45 GMT -6
I kinda want the devs to introduce at least 4-6 quality values, Its weird how a 1902 '10 inch gun' can be compared to a 1950 variant of equal quality. I'm considering modding something like that by shifting the beginning quality of all guns down by one. If the penetration values get unreasonably low I might have to modify the vpen file. Internal ballistics/barrel construction didn't advance too much after the early dreadnought period--the 5"/38 was mostly just a barrel extension from a 1920s weapon (with vastly superior mounts), and the BL 15-inch Mark I was regarded as the best heavy gun the British ever made. Most of the improvements were to loading arrangements and shell design (both aerodynamics and armor penetration), two of which (excepting shell aerodynamics) are already represented by other technologies. We don't just have to consider the dreadnought period. We need to consider all the way back to the late 1890s, as that's when the guns countries start with in 1900 would have been designed. For example, the USN put a 12"/35 caliber gun in service in 1896. I would call that a Q-2 gun. From there they went to a 12"/40 in 1902; a Q-1 gun. The 12"/45 came in 1906, a Q0 gun. The 12"/50 came in 1912, and I would call that a Q1 gun. Even when the USN designed a new 12"/50 in 1939 it was virtually the same gun. Same chamber volume, virtually the same bore length, less than 2% lighter. That gun/shell combination was considered the best 12" gun ever put in service, so I have to agree that construction of the guns themselves didn't improve much after the early 1920s or so. I also agree that more than 4 quality levels would be too far. The 5"/38 was not an extension of the 5"/25. The first prototype was actually a cut down 5"/51, an even earlier weapon. And the BL 15" Mk1 was only a good weapon through the first half of the interwar years. It was the best gun/shell combination ever used by the British, but there are myriad reasons for that. If you compare these guns (which were still wire wound guns) to more modern guns like the Italian 15"/50 you can see that it was obsolescent, as the British Admiralty recognized. Probably the biggest reason these guns were the best heavy guns the British used was poor mounting designs in the Nelson and King George V classes as well as the decision to use light shells for the 16" guns. Some of that would have been corrected in the Lion class, but wars have a bit of a habit of changing plans.
|
|
|
Post by warlock on Jun 3, 2019 13:25:55 GMT -6
There are alot of things that don't make sense. I was playing WoWS last night looking at the brand new Russian Tier 3 BB Knyaz Suvorov which while being fake, is supposed to be based on plans drawn up before 1910 by Russia. This reminded me that many, if not most real life battleships that were actually built around 1905-1910 had two forward turrets yet I don't seem to recall ever unlocking the Superimposed B turret tech until like 1920-1925 well after the tech was available to most countries. For example, the USS South Carolina has superimposed front turrets and it was laid down in 1906 and I am pretty sure most of the Superpowers of the time had BBs with superimposed front turret BBs by 1910.
To me this is one of the most frustrating things about Rule the Waves 1 or 2 in my opinion. I hate having to wait until 1920 or later to start designing proper Battleships.
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 3, 2019 13:41:20 GMT -6
There are alot of things that don't make sense. I was playing WoWS last night looking at the brand new Russian Tier 3 BB Knyaz Suvorov which while being fake, is supposed to be based on plans drawn up before 1910 by Russia. This reminded me that many, if not most real life battleships that were actually built around 1905-1910 had two forward turrets yet I don't seem to recall ever unlocking the Superimposed B turret tech until like 1920-1925 well after the tech was available to most countries. For example, the USS South Carolina has superimposed front turrets and it was laid down in 1906 and I am pretty sure most of the Superpowers of the time had BBs with superimposed front turret BBs by 1910. To me this is one of the most frustrating things about Rule the Waves 1 or 2 in my opinion. I hate having to wait until 1920 or later to start designing proper Battleships. In my current game I got superimposed B in about 1908. I'm playing Italy, so ship design is my advantaged field, but still.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jun 3, 2019 17:29:12 GMT -6
There are alot of things that don't make sense. I was playing WoWS last night looking at the brand new Russian Tier 3 BB Knyaz Suvorov which while being fake, is supposed to be based on plans drawn up before 1910 by Russia. This reminded me that many, if not most real life battleships that were actually built around 1905-1910 had two forward turrets yet I don't seem to recall ever unlocking the Superimposed B turret tech until like 1920-1925 well after the tech was available to most countries. For example, the USS South Carolina has superimposed front turrets and it was laid down in 1906 and I am pretty sure most of the Superpowers of the time had BBs with superimposed front turret BBs by 1910. To me this is one of the most frustrating things about Rule the Waves 1 or 2 in my opinion. I hate having to wait until 1920 or later to start designing proper Battleships. If you don't play varied tech or slowed tech that is extremely strange. Its almost guaranteed that at least USA(Who have an advantage in this field) is going to have superimposed forward turret. Most other country follow a bit slower, as is the case IRL, but should have at least 1 of the forward or rare superimposed turret by 1912~13 Also I'd be extremely skeptical about WoWs Russian ship designs. Russia was highly dismissive of superimposed turrets. They believe it was both unnecessary due to not addining meaningful broadside weight, and potentially problematic due to blast interference. The subsequent Russian ww1 dreads are all designed without superimposed turret for that exact reason. While superimposed turret might be brought up(Russia ship building around this time does take from US, including using lattice masts for awhile), I don't think the use of superimposed turret on the WoWs tier 3 makes much sense as a reflection of Russian doctrines. (That said, its not the point of WoWs to make sense, but it shouldn't be taken as an indicator that most countries are willing to play with superimposed turrets much earlier than 1910.) RTW tech is not only meant to reflect the feasibility to build certain designs, but also the doctrinal willingness to do so, and superimposed turret actually met some resistance even following the launch of the South Carolina. The first british BB with superimposed turret is Orion, ordered on 1909 and launched 1912 AH's Tegetthoff is also launched 1912, Kaiser also ordered in 1909. Russia never did build or laid down any superimposed turret. Bottom line is 1910 seems a fair point for superimposed turret to start slowly appearing(e.g Kaiser only have a rear superimposed turret), with certain country maybe getting them later. In most of my games without varied tech that's also around the time where I tend to get superimposed turret tech, and much earlier if I opt to build in an American yard.
|
|