|
Post by dorn on Jun 1, 2019 4:15:59 GMT -6
Diesels do have a weight advantage, atleast from what I'm seeing in my current 1937 game. However, it is only notable on Long/Extreme ranges, and with speeds below ~30-32 knots. The breakpoint with my current tech on a 34kton BB seems to be ~29 knots on Long Range and ~32 knots on Extreme. For Medium range Oil seems to be better consistently, though below ~22 knots the difference is minor (<150tons). Hmm, at they have. I have tried it several times without effect. However I use usually 30-31 knots cruisers or 27-28 knots battleships.
I have never used extreme range as I cannot see advantage for such huge tonnage spending.
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on Jun 1, 2019 4:19:18 GMT -6
Diesels do have a weight advantage, atleast from what I'm seeing in my current 1937 game. However, it is only notable on Long/Extreme ranges, and with speeds below ~30-32 knots. The breakpoint with my current tech on a 34kton BB seems to be ~29 knots on Long Range and ~32 knots on Extreme. For Medium range Oil seems to be better consistently, though below ~22 knots the difference is minor (<150tons). Yes... as far as I understand diesel engines are suppose to be put on slower long range ships. So armed merchant, corvettes and perhaps your CVE or slower CV or CVL ships. Anything that benefit from long and extreme ranges with lower speeds, preferably below 30 knots. Diesel engines are not meant for speedy warships such as cruisers and battleships. In 1920 I also see that Coal and Oil have very small differences and coal still seem like a good option as far as I can tell unless you have some weight restrictions on the ships. Coal are still less expensive both in build cost and maintenance for a slight increase in ship tonnage. For example a test ship I made at 13000t with 30kn speed a coal ship was 13600t and slightly cheaper to build and maintain with the added ability of internal protection from coal storage's. But I might be missing something?!?
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Jun 1, 2019 4:24:15 GMT -6
Once I have oil, I personally never use coal, so you don't have to slow down because of grate fouling, or the stokers getting exhausted, or whichever other cause. Reliably keeping high speeds worth losing the coal bunkers for me.
|
|
|
Post by greydragon on Jun 1, 2019 4:26:43 GMT -6
I get some saved weight with Diesel on higher range options in the later game, especially more so on heavier ships. It's most noticeable on extreme range ships.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 1, 2019 8:12:26 GMT -6
Once I have oil, I personally never use coal, so you don't have to slow down because of grate fouling, or the stokers getting exhausted, or whichever other cause. Reliably keeping high speeds worth losing the coal bunkers for me. Mostly the same for me, but there are some ships - KEs, DDs for trade protection, probably AMCs, maybe raiding cruisers - for which low cost is probably more valuable than sustained high speed.
|
|
|
Post by BathTubAdmiral on Jun 1, 2019 12:04:36 GMT -6
Yet, those ships should use diesel engines after ~1935, IMHO.
|
|