Do you have rules of thumb for armor design?

[wevets]

I'm finding that with most ships I know what I want in terms of speed and weaponry. That leaves armor as a bit of an afterthought, and I'd like to change that, but I have no idea where to start.

What do you all use as principles for armor design?

[elouda]

I tend to follow some general rules, but it often comes down to what you can afford in terms of tradeoffs. Heres a rough idea;

Belt End is typically half (on legacy fleet) or a third of Belt on B/BB/BC. For CA its typically 2, CL its 0.
Deck is always 2 or more on B/BB/BC, Deck End typically a third of that (but not less than 1). Deck End for CA is 1, for CL its 0.
(Belt End/Deck End are 0 after you move to AON)
For guns over 6in, Turret is always higher than Belt, often by atleast 1, sometimes more. At a bare minimum, Turret is atleast 75% of gun caliber (9in for 12in guns, 12in for 16in guns)
For guns over 6in, Turret Top is always atleast 1 more than Deck, often between 1/3 and 1/2 of Turret
For guns 6in and under, Turret and Turret Top are 2 (or lower, but generally only for light CL or CVs)
Conning Tower is either 2-3in or atleast equal to Belt, preferably equal to Turret
Secondaries are 3-4in on B, 2in for 6in and less after that, ~75% of secondary caliber for over 6in (6in for 8in secondaries)

Bs tend to run in the 8-10in range for Belt, early BB around 9-11in, late BB 11in+. BC vary a lot depending on philosophy and needs.
Early CA typically 5-6in Belt, later ones 4-5in (will depend on how big your 'late' CA are, I tend not to go over ~12000t)
CL will vary a lot, but 'large' CL (over 6000t) get full 3in belt

[griffin01]

4 inches of BE on Bs and very early BBs/BCs, for the rest it is either 2", 1" (some cruisers) or 0" (light cruisers only)
No less than 11 inches of belt on my first BB, it increases slowly until the end of the game, but I've yet to build a ship with more than 15 inches of belt (I use the sloped deck scheme). BCs get 10-12 and never get more. CAs get as much as possible to fit in the design, although I try not to get below 5 inches. CLs under 8000 tons get 2 inches of belt, those under 4000 tons may get less, over 8000 tons may get more.
Nearly always at least 2 inches of deck, except on light cruisers, where small ones might get 1-1.5". In general, I raise the deck armour by around 1 inch every 10 years on capital ships, but I wouldn't put more than 7", and 6" is fine from my experience. As for DE, on CA and above exactly 2 inches, CL get either 1" or 0" depending on configuration.
As for the turrets, CL usually get 2"/2" faces/top, with bigger ones possibly getting 3"/2". CA usually get 1-1.5" more than the belt, BC's get faces at least as thick as the belt, and later thicker, and tops of deck armour + 0.5". The turret top rule is the same for BB, but I usually use 4-gun turrets, so I often put 2-3" more armour on turret faces than on belt.
The conning tower is usually at least equivalent to the turret face armour.
Secondaries get 4" of protection on B and guns 6" or less (I usually use heavier secondaries), otherwise enough to armour them against enemy CA fire or 8" guns, whichever has more penetration (In the current game it amounts to 7.5" at most ranges). An exception are Semi-dreadnoughts - they get secondary armour equal to the main battery - 1-2".

Edit.: On BC I quite often use unified narrow belt, in which case obviously BE = Belt.

Edit2.: On CV I try to have at least 5" of belt and 2" of deck, with splinter protection for DP guns and 3-4" of flight deck, but no less than 2".

[alsadius]

Usually my process goes something like this: 
1) Put a dummy turret on with guns roughly equal to what I want to armour it against. 
2) Set belt equal to expected pen at a reasonable combat range - say, 5k yards in 1900, or 10k yards in 1920. Set deck high enough to give me a decent immune zone. On all but the smallest ships, give at least 2" to protect against splinters. 
3) Turret face and conning tower usually equal the belt, turret tops usually equal the deck. Secondaries try to equal half the belt. 
4) If I have AoN design, no BE/DE. If I don't, make them about half as much as the main belt/deck(though again, 2" minimum if I can). 
5) If I have the tech and the ship's got a decent armour setup, I incline the belt. 
6) If I start cursing loudly at the amount of weight that the armour is consuming, I'll consider going to a narrow belt, or decreasing my desired immunities. 
7) If I have more weight left than I expected, I'll add a bit more to turrets and conning tower. If it's a lot more weight, belt/deck increases also get considered. 

That said, I start my designs with a target weight and a target mission(e.g., "Let's make a 6kton CA to use those new 8"/+1 guns I just unlocked), so "more weight" is a logical concept. For people who start with the mission and let the weight float as needed, it'll probably be different. 

[aetreus]

I tend to favor extremely heavy armoring of ships, especially turrets. Usually at a cost in weight of fire. Turrets are armored sufficiently to protect them down to short ranges against similar guns(all ranges at at start of game, about 5k yards during battleship era). Roofs should be thick enough to keep shells out to typical spotting ranges. This applies to battlecruisers as well, they cut down deck/belt but turret armor is kept at battleship levels. Keeping turrets in the fight and avoiding the dreaded flash fire is very important.

Belt is typically several inches thinner on a BB and about half turret armor on a BC. That makes for reasonable IZ on a battleship and resistance to older smaller weapons on newer battlecruisers.

Generally the philosophy driving this is that as the game goes on, penetration will go up significantly. Ships that are overarmored will remain viable for use- even if their main armor doesn't work their turrets will still hold up and that makes them not too bad in a line fight. Being undergunned is less of a problem because increases in shell penetration apply even to older guns. A big brick of armor with smaller guns turns into a reasonably armored ship that can still shoot up modern battleships in the right circumstances. Conservative armoring leads to older ships that will get all their guns shot out or explode in 1930.

[alsadius]

May 31, 2019 13:46:55 GMT -6 aetreus said:

Turrets are armored sufficiently to protect them down to short ranges against similar guns(all ranges at at start of game, about 5k yards during battleship era). 

Wait, you can see pen at ranges below 5k yards? How? 

[jakematt]

on build screen, next to main gun selection, is button for gun data

[alsadius]

May 31, 2019 14:34:20 GMT -6 jakematt said:

on build screen, next to main gun selection, is button for gun data

Yes, but it only goes from 5k yards up to the max range. 0-4k yards don't show for me. 

[aetreus]

May 31, 2019 14:19:07 GMT -6 alsadius said:

May 31, 2019 13:46:55 GMT -6 aetreus said:

Turrets are armored sufficiently to protect them down to short ranges against similar guns(all ranges at at start of game, about 5k yards during battleship era). 

Wait, you can see pen at ranges below 5k yards? How? 

It's not that hard to extrapolate the 5k yard data down to zero. 

[snwh]

Well, lets see. I think everyone does their armor a bit differently. But that dosn't mean hearing how other people do it is a bad thing.

Before AON armor, I personally always use narrow belt, so that I can have a really thick BE, usually only an inch or two less.

Turrets definitely get up armored for me. Usually an inch or two more face. THe turret top depends. If it's expected to fight at close engagment ranges, say a CL or a CA, well their guns have flat trajectories most of the game. You don't *really* need more than 2" (though always check the pen data obviously. this might have changed now that you can apparently get 11" guns onto CA's). So, yeah, on CL's and CA's, I generally don't bring the deck up to more than 2" maybe 2-1/2" if gun data is saying I need that at max range.

However for battleships and battlecruisers its a different story. You need to be thinking about futureproofing these ships, because you'll prolly have them in your fleet for at least 15 years. Once I start getting to superimposed triple turrets, I generally start putting extra inches of deck armor on there. if I still need 2" I might put 3-1/2" or more. or even 5" if I can fit it.

This is where another exception comes in. Maybe im just not noticing something, but it feels like 7" of deck armor, is pretty immune to most guns your gonna face. once you get to that point, you don't really need extra inches of turret top armor either. SO thats a place where I tend to save a little weight.

As for belt armor, well, as much as you can afford to give you a good immunity zone right? But don't be afraid to make that immunity zone kinda smallish if your say, making a budget CA. Armor is heavy and expensive, if your making a CA to unt other CA's, you don't need to go overboard and give it the armor of a battlecruiser, you just need to give it enough to beat whatever caliber of guns your expecting (usually either 6" or 8" or 10")

But for battleships, I don't think thre's any such thing as too much armor. all too often fleet battles devolve into brawls, for one reason or another. Night is coming, and you want to finish off that one last ship, or the enemy line charges you suddenly, or unexpected meetings in the dark. So its good to have a nice thick belt armor if you can afford it. That eing said, if your cautious with you battleline, and they have the speed to dictate range, you could prolly get away with skimping on the belt. Just not on the deck.

[jorgencab]

So... no one is using narrow belt armour on their cruisers to save weight?!?

I use that on all early cruisers to gain some speed advantages and lower cost and maintenance on my ships. With this configuration I make the BE about 2/3 of the belt armour and you get a significant reduction in armour weight and pretty good protection. I also noticed that if a ship is hit in an unarmoured part then the AP rounds (usually an AP) round just blows a hole in the ship and do little damage. At least I think this is what happens.

Anyway on cruisers this seem to work really well.

The exact amount of armour will then depend on the intended role I have for the ship. There is always a trade between armour, speed and weapons

[aeson]

For battleships, battlecruisers, and first class (armored)/heavy cruisers, I try to go for a zone of immunity against the guns my ship carries at what I consider to be a reasonable engagement range for the period - roughly 5,000 yards early game, moving out to about 8000-12000 yards around 1910 and 15,000-20,000 yards after about 1915-1925 (depending on when I get Improved Directors and decent 15" or heavier guns) - with a larger zone of immunity on the turrets.

Second class or light cruisers built as small CAs within the game might also get a zone of immunity against their own guns, but second class ('protected') and light cruisers built as CLs usually just get splinter protection on the belt - more than about 2" of belt armor ought to be overkill in the protected cruiser armor configuration and I usually only give individually-mounted 6" or lighter guns 2" gunshields anyways.

Third class cruisers (small cruisers meant primarily for colonial service or raiding rather than for fleet service) usually get about as little armor as I can give them - 1" B/D, somewhat often also using the narrow belt configuration.

Sometimes I give corvettes about an inch of B/T/TT/SEC armor, but more often they're left unarmored. Might consider heavier armor for a relatively large aviso-style corvette since that'd be more comparable to an early-game third class cruiser or a later-game destroyer, but with the smaller corvettes I don't see much point to it; they're mostly there for ASW or minesweeping rather than for gun fights, anyways.

May 31, 2019 16:47:55 GMT -6 jorgencab said:

So... no one is using narrow belt armour on their cruisers to save weight?!?

I've never really felt that CLs needed BE/DE armor, and Narrow Belt with extension armor probably won't save you as much tonnage as not having armor on the extensions unless you're doing something a bit weird. I do sometimes use Narrow Belt for CAs, because early-game CAs want a main belt about 5" thick to resist 9" and 10" guns and a uniform 5" narrow belt weighs about as much as a 5" / 2" normal belt - per inch of thickness, the belt armor in normal configuration is about 63% B and 37% BE and using narrow belt saves you about 21% of the B and 25% of the BE weight, so a uniform narrow belt weighs about the same as an incremental normal belt when BE armor on the incremental normal belt is about 40% as thick as the B armor and less when the incremental scheme's BE armor is thicker. I also occasionally use uniform narrow belt configurations for battleships as a sort of early form of all-or-nothing armor.

[rockmedic109]

I used to use 2" BE or 4" BE on anything I put armor on the BE. Even BB and B got 4" BE. My last game I armored the BE, just not as much as the belt, going about 2" less. I seemed to have fewer belt end hits that cause flooding. Small sample size but it seemed to trend that way.

I usually design the ships to have the same protection for Belt, Turret and CT. Secondaries are 2 or 4 inches {protects against splinters or proof against DD weapons}. Starting B and early BC have 9 inches {BC will have half as many secondaries and only 2 inches of armor}. Newer ships get as much as I can cram on that given tonnage.

[swang]

I follow two philosophies

1) England expects every man to do his duty.
In the pre air era, all front turrets (A, B C) heavy belt armor, BE (if AON hasn't been researched) at 50% Belt, and 2 in deck/turret top. (never any more.) BBs and BCs are supposed to charge towards the enemy battleline and not stop.

2) The bombers will always get through.
In the air era, 3-4 in decks, DE (if AON hasn't been researched) at 50% deck, and start reducing belt armor. BBs and BCs are just glorified AA platforms.

[wevets]

Thanks, this is very helpful. Starting to view armor a little differently now