|
Post by akosjaccik on Jun 3, 2019 9:20:26 GMT -6
A long-range smallish CL raider with reliable engines using mid-1930s tech5'' is already being a bit light on the offensive end for a cruiser. 4''s... and no torpedoes... well, just doesn't cut it for me, tbh . Long range is good but just not AS good. Also 29 knots and no planes which means the bonus for raiding from the floatplanes is lost, and that the second that ship crosses paths with a proper cruiser (30+ knots)... I guess, by any means, I'm not saying it's bad for the job, or useless, or that it won't work...but I'd rather go for the AV I posted. Not sure what makes you think it has no planes, the flight tab is not open, but the rectangle is clearly a catapult. 4" and no torpedoes are plenty enough for raiding, and if your 28kts+planes are good enough to run away, so is 29. As for RtW, Long and Extreme ranges weren't wildly different if I recall correctly, quite a few people were on the opinion that the sacrificed weight isn't up for the inconclusive differences in return either. As such, looking at these as strategic weapons, I'd go with aeson's design - impact in numbers. Edit: Not that I wouldn't eat a good hybrid.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 3, 2019 10:05:09 GMT -6
A long-range smallish CL raider with reliable engines using mid-1930s tech5'' is already being a bit light on the offensive end for a cruiser. 4''s... and no torpedoes... well, just doesn't cut it for me, tbh . Long range is good but just not AS good. Also 29 knots and no planes which means the bonus for raiding from the floatplanes is lost, and that the second that ship crosses paths with a proper cruiser (30+ knots)... I guess, by any means, I'm not saying it's bad for the job, or useless, or that it won't work...but I'd rather go for the AV I posted. - 4" guns are adequate for a raider. - As akosjaccik noted, the rectangle ahead of the rear superfiring pair is a catapult; that particular design has a pair of floatplanes in a hangar, though you could alternatively drop the hangar for a third floatplane.
- If your 28kn AV is fast enough to run away, a 29kn CL should be, too.
- Even with 5" guns, something as poorly armored as that example raiding cruiser isn't going to win a gunfight against a 'proper' cruiser unless it gets very, very lucky, but if you want them... ... you can have them on about the same displacement for about the same cost as eight 4" DP guns. As with the version that uses a 4" DP main battery, you can put 2" faces and 1" tops on the turrets if you're willing to go up to about 4000 tons and pay an extra million per ship. - If you really want torpedoes, the ~4,000t versions can fit a couple tubes without sacrificing anything that the ~3600t versions have, or you can cut the design speed to 28 knots to fit a couple tubes onto the ~3600t variants and it still won't be any less capable of running away than the 28kn AV you posted earlier.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 3, 2019 10:37:00 GMT -6
As for the topic itself, I've had success with floatplane raiders. Instance below: 1940 design. To kill merchants anything bigger than 5'' is honestly overkill. Diesels, reliability, extreme range, manageable cost, floatplanes to increase merchant detection, and if intercepted 28 knots is enough to get out of dogde while lobbing a couple floatplanes to disrupt the pursuing enemy as you force him to maneouver to avoid the incoming bombs. This ship was intercepted a couple of time by a 30+ knot CLs and walked away untouched just because of that reason, and I never saw them with the dreaded (for raiders) * symbol. Does this ship actually work more effectively than a base CL raider? I mean, does RTW2 have code that can recognize the effectiveness of floatplanes finding and helping destroy merchant ships? Or is this only as equally effective as a run of the mill Long Range CL Raider? I have quite a doubt it would be twice more efficient than CL raiders. As mentioned earlier it seems that in RTW2 it is more difficult to thwart enemy raider so numbers could be much more useful.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 3, 2019 10:42:16 GMT -6
A long-range smallish CL raider with reliable engines using mid-1930s tech5'' is already being a bit light on the offensive end for a cruiser. 4''s... and no torpedoes... well, just doesn't cut it for me, tbh . Long range is good but just not AS good. Also 29 knots and no planes which means the bonus for raiding from the floatplanes is lost, and that the second that ship crosses paths with a proper cruiser (30+ knots)... I guess, by any means, I'm not saying it's bad for the job, or useless, or that it won't work...but I'd rather go for the AV I posted. But your AV have same issue with any cruiser they can defend itself. Best defence of any raider is speed, so 29 knots CL is certainly better than 28 knots AV.
For raider you only expect them to fight merchants and AMC, for that purpose any light armament is good.
I have experience that 29 knots cruiser can usually evade 30 knots cruiser. You can use aeson minimal cruiser and increse speed to 30 knots it will cost still half of your AV.
And numbers are quality of their own. If you have 10 raiders how much of them will be intercepted in 1 year? Meantime all remaining raiders will do the job much more effectively than 5 AV. Loosing 1 AV is much more costly than loosing 1 CL raider.
EDIT: but I think both strategy would work. The question is which is more effective. But I suggest use old cruiser for that task. Old cruisers from end of 10s could make 29 knots and are not supposed to be for fleet duty. However as raiders they can be still useful and their costs are minimal, only maitenance and in peace they can be mothballed.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 3, 2019 11:16:59 GMT -6
What better way to explore the ideas then to run them in a simulation! Like Rule the Waves 2! Rule the Waves 2 handles commerce raiding, carrier aircraft operations, and logistics far too abstractly to provide any real insight into how well one or another type of ship would work as a commerce raider in the real world. All wargaming has ties to the games staff used to do to try things out before spending real lives. Simulation methods have various levels of abstraction and yes while you move into more abstract you can introduce errors. Figuring out to make something work in a simulation, the game RTW2, gives insights into how it could/couldn't/needs for the real world. If your offering to budget for building actual ships in the 6,000 ton range Id be happy to review the data you collect.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 3, 2019 11:19:12 GMT -6
raiders are a numbers game so the only raider worth building is maintaining 30+ AMCs with a single floatplane (very large fleets) the purpose of raiding is to cause the enemy to collapse, and having a few expensive raider warships will never come close to giving the same results of many cheap AMCs ding, ding, ding If I was Will Smith's Genie I'd give you a prize. I dunno, maybe an ambitiously friendly camel.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 3, 2019 11:31:01 GMT -6
Rule the Waves 2 handles commerce raiding, carrier aircraft operations, and logistics far too abstractly to provide any real insight into how well one or another type of ship would work as a commerce raider in the real world. But you can make that assessment just on it's own without using RtW at all. Small carriers were tragically impaired when it came down to use aircraft as they got heavier with time. <snip of good content for brevity> So, it's a simple no - a "small CV raider" would've not fared very well. And we don't need RtW to reach that conclussion . I will also admit something we don't see simulated in RTW2 is the length of the flight deck. That is rather important. Catapults help with launches and arrestor wires with landings but you still need a square area to put it and a length more than width. That is one of the simulation errors or lost in abstraction as another in the thread might say. Assuming one could over come the deck size would the presence of the planes give how much benefit? Then one could look at the cost to develop the methods or technology to deal with the issue. In the case of flight deck length there are modern answers with helicopters, VSTOL, VTOL, ski jumps and pilot less drones being smaller aircraft. Others are bringing up concerns with the logistics and repairs. Ive presented the flight deck issue of a CVLR as a way to show that if assume we can't do anything about it we would never look at how to solve it. Sometimes it might take technologies 50 years ahead of the times...
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 3, 2019 12:02:33 GMT -6
I'd also like to add a thought...
The game is very good at simulating the Admiralty discussions of "would this work?".
Listening to the recent youtube interview with the Dev the thinking like an Admiral was part of the goals. The discussions here feel pretty much like real world engineering discussions I've been in (back in the my engineering days).
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jun 3, 2019 16:17:36 GMT -6
i'l point out that if you are adding floatplanes to a raider there's no need to bother with a catapult or hanger since it's having the floatplane that gives it a bonus as a raider, not the accessories - why waste cash when you don't have to
also having more than 1 floatplane might be a waste as well, but that's impossible to know unless Fredrick says something or it's tested
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 3, 2019 16:57:14 GMT -6
I will also admit something we don't see simulated in RTW2 is the length of the flight deck. That is rather important. Catapults help with launches and arrestor wires with landings but you still need a square area to put it and a length more than width. That is one of the simulation errors or lost in abstraction as another in the thread might say. That's a good point. I hope they include something like this if they ever do anything with Jets. williammiller garrisonchisholm ;-) In an abstract way, the Spot value of a carrier handles this, but Jets throw the wrench into the intake.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jun 3, 2019 17:34:46 GMT -6
This thread has kind of locked onto floatplanes on raiders but I'll throw in my recent exploration of a somewhat different use for float planes. Like several other posters have mentioned I favor floatplanes as a means of avoiding using my carrier planes for search and install them in many of my ships. But I wanted to see how far I could push them as offensive weapons while exploring the concept of a seaplane carrier hybrid. Here is my attempt to create a usable seaplane carrier hybrid. The effort was quixotic in the extreme but the ship was actually battle tested. The AV Elisa is equipped with 30 kt speed, 12 6" main guns and 3" of belt and turret armor. Those are the biggest guns and heaviest armor allowed the type. She would give a good account of herself in a surface battle with a light cruiser. The middle two turrets are not superimposed, which appears to be disallowed for AVs. As for air capacity the ship is extravagantly equipped with 13 swivel catapults, the most I could massage the game into allowing. Since the spot value of an AV is exactly equivalent to the number of catapults, this allows the Elisa to launch a naval strike of 13 floatplanes. Shortly after her commissioning in 1927 my floatplanes became capable of carrying 500 lb. bombs (I emphasized range and bomb load for floatplanes). They used those bombs effectively, achieving 3 hits on a BB (probably already damaged) in one strike. Floatplanes can only level bomb, so their targets are properly auxiliaries or slowed and damaged ships. When attacking those targets floatplanes achieve a reasonable success rate. I could have carried more planes but I arrived at 26 because it gave me the ability to launch a large scale search while retaining sufficient planes to launch a strike when the enemy is located (the ship was only experimental to begin with). This is probably as close as you can come to an offensive minded AV/CL hybrid. If you attempt to approach this design by starting the ship design as a CL you will run into the limitation of 4 floatplanes on a light cruiser. I was able to install 10 legal catapults on a CL if its displacement was over 7,900 but just one if less than 8,000 tons. With just 4 floatplanes available the difference is moot, because the strike capability of such a ship is rather thin regardless. On a CL they are best used for recon or to annoy and disorganize the enemy line or pursuit. I found there are other game related considerations. The Elisa is classed as an AV so it is very unlikely that it would be selected for cruiser battles. It has shown up in several large battles. In these battles it has been placed near or well behind the battle line, which is probably typical. Such a ship would be unlikely to use it's heavy main guns and cruiser armor unless you intentionally pushed it forward into harm's way. As for using other ship types to create hybrids, even floatplane equipped hybrids, the story is not good. Battleships, battlecruisers and heavy cruisers are not constrained in the number of floatplanes they may carry but they do run into a limitation in allowable catapults. They may not carry more than two catapults, making them quite unsatisfactory as a choice for a hybrid that can do anything more than execute aerial searches. The Elisa cost about 55 million to build, while a similarly equipped CL with 4 floatplanes and a single catapult ran about 40 million at the time. I tried making the ship cheaper by stripping the heavy guns down to 4" DP mains, removing all armor, and reducing the speed to 28 kts. I was able to reduce displacement on the AV to 10,100. Thus stripped of its hybrid surface battle equipment the ship would cost 27 million but retain 26 floatplanes and a 13 plane strike ability and would perhaps be worthy of building. Another cost consideration for the AV hybrid is the cost of the air wing, which in wartime would cost an additional 260,000 on top of its already hefty maintenance cost of 476,000 per month. The hybrid AV Elisa has roughly the same monthly maintenance cost as one of my CVLs that has a capacity of 27 planes. For that cost the CVL is a much better buy. The hybrid version of this ship would be very unlikely to find much use for its surface weaponry and protection. While I appreciate the useful, if limited strike ability of the heavy AV, the surface combat equipment of the hybrid version was an expensive and unnecessary addition that will very rarely find use.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 3, 2019 22:34:32 GMT -6
Here is my attempt to create a usable seaplane carrier hybrid. The effort was quixotic in the extreme but the ship was actually battle tested. The AV Elisa is equipped with 30 kt speed, 12 6" main guns and 3" of belt and turret armor. Those are the biggest guns and heaviest armor allowed the type. She would give a good account of herself in a surface battle with a light cruiser. The middle two turrets are not superimposed, which appears to be disallowed for AVs. <snip> The hybrid version of this ship would be very unlikely to find much use for its surface weaponry and protection. While I appreciate the useful, if limited strike ability of the heavy AV, the surface combat equipment of the hybrid version was an expensive and unnecessary addition that will very rarely find use. Thanks for the insight. One thing we know with hindsight is how carrier flat tops allowed both better planes and better organization of them (spot setting strike size in RTW2). In the original real world it was a new technology being explored. Ive wondered about using float planes as strike packages. The time in the technology window is rather limited to a few years when it would make sense. Namely before you had flattops, or rather... before you have RTW2 torpedo bombers and dive bombers. If all you had for the flat top were fighters with small bomb loads the float planes, with their small bomb loads, would stay around longer. >>>> An earlier poster, apologies on my forgetting who, commented on disapproving of the CVLR due to the need for maintenance, avgas and other logistics. I had proposed a supply ship might carry these meeting with the raider like Altmark met with the Graf Spree. I also submit for consideration that the raider could work in a burst of activity mode. It would sail to a trade route, launch a series of strikes by air or recon-then-cannon, then go quiet since after all nearby merchants are now fleeing and enemy warships are coming. During the quiet phase planes could get extensive work done in preparation for a few days of the next burst. When planning with role play needs for air craft I do tend to include at least 2 sea planes if the ship is to operate alone more for those logistic needs meaning that one (or some of a larger group) will be broken down or needing care on a random day. A burst-of-activity day though is a planned day so more likely you crew can work to have more ready on the day of importance or delay the burst if too many are not battle ready. >>> I've had a few more battles testing the designs I put forward. My small AVR did not do so well when on the tactical map. Oddly the enemy positions were one to the SE and another quickly found to the NW. Seems I was in a planned pincer trap. By the time the 28kt AVR had done its turning a 29kt enemy interceptor had gotten a few hits in dropping my speed. The AVR tried a 2-3 float plane level bombing run which did divert the fast interceptor but that was only a delay in steering as no hits were scored. The AVR could then not slow down to recover its planes. On the strategic side the AVR are meerily clocking in merchants each turn. AS are the other raider types, CVLR and CLR. Im no experimenting with the massed AMC idea someone else had mentioned. So long as it is 1-2 floatplanes the RTW2 engine rates it as an AMC. Total build cost can be less. The time to build is 4 months with the total cost split over far fewer months meaning a spike in expenses. Im thinking now that as a war strategy the AVR, CLR, CVLR all have merit. Their higher build cost to the AMC means that they are still good in one important role: they can be pre-positioned. When war with my next enemy broke out I already had float plane fitted ships waiting to be given the R for raider status. Figuring on 1-2 per sea zone means 12-24 pre built and pre positioned raiders. Then top up with a surge of AMC building. For your consideration.
|
|
|
Post by thesovietonion on Jun 5, 2019 17:37:23 GMT -6
Just updated to 1.03 and put into service a class of 10K ton light cruisers with 2 catapults, 4 seaplanes and a moderate armament to act as carrier group scout carriers. I am so happy to see them actually using the seaplanes properly!
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 5, 2019 18:14:12 GMT -6
Just updated to 1.03 and put into service a class of 10K ton light cruisers with 2 catapults, 4 seaplanes and a moderate armament to act as carrier group scout carriers. I am so happy to see them actually using the seaplanes properly! Cool! It helps if the underlaying game code is working as hoped for. I had some late war fights trying out the AMC+FP, AVR, CLR, CVLR we had talked about. Observations at this point: AMC+FP = AMC can be built with up to 2 float planes. Only 1 is needed for the bonus but as I think of planes as needing high maintenance I tend to have 2. = Quickly built in 4 months make it possible to surge raider numbers at the starts of a long war but you will lose them. = Limited to 21 knots makes them useful in the early aviation age and less useful at the later game as they have no hope of escaping an interception battle, but you can still flood the seas = Being lost at the end of each war it seems better to have a core of the other types as pre-positioned raiders with the AMC+FP as wartime replacements or to surge the numbers = Combat in interception is poor and speed is poor but I did get lucky turning to fire 3xtorps from one side then the other side and score 2 hits to actually sink a medium CA interceptor. AVR = Requires at least 3 float planes which is really more than enough = Can have any speed = Minor price reduction compared to very limited armor CLR = Doesnt see much action in fleet battles = Surviving by escaping a tactical interception is iffy. Mine got intercepted while another poster said theirs got away. (bad luck for me having a ship SE and NW and one of them damaged the engine. There is also the need to slow down to launch if no catapult and the follow up slow down to recover planes. Having no catapult and stopping to launch turned out to be a really bad decision) = A viable option to taste = Roleplay to taste as converted merchants that aren't sold off between wars CLR = Can be made with limited armor such as 1" narrow belt and still qualify as a CL. Can then armor the gun(s) = Only one float plane is needed and catapult is optional = Does serve useful duty as a fleet scout = Being useful as a fleet scout I tended to pull them off raider duty to use them in that role CVLR = Needs to unlocked by mid-level aviation technology = Requires several planes so will limit you on guns and other features = Can carry torpedo planes making them very useful as scout or attack support to fleets = For the size the cluster of torpedo planes, if the weather is suitable for air ops, makes this the only small raider likely to sink a medium cruiser interceptor = There are debates in the thread on the logistic capability of these Conclusions: In future games Im likely to build ~8-12 mini raiders for the pre positioned duties in distant seas. These will be AVR and transition to CVLR when technology allows. CLR will just be used as CLFP (Cruiser Light Float Plane) for use in fleets as I kept pulling them to that anyway. AMC+FP can be built as surges or rapid in war replacement.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 5, 2019 23:29:59 GMT -6
I can see 2 issue using floatplanes are main source of scouting: - small range - if this tactic is not used there is no need to have high quality scout and resources can be used for other types of aicrafts
|
|