AI ship design confused by late game treaties

[rodentnavy]

Following a 1950s treaty extension towards the end of a v1.03 campaign as GB , 1900 start, large fleet and historical resources the US went from a perfectly good and sensible treaty compliant heavy cruiser design to this



Which might look a perfectly sound ship but not one you expect to commission in 1955. I have been informed in this thread that the cross deck fire after a treaty bug also occurred in beta, so it seems it may have snuck back in cf: this thread here

[alsadius]

Also, 3" belt should be a CL and not a CA, I'd think. (The CL cap is 12000 tons by this point in 1.03, so it's not a weight thing)

[dorn]

Jun 14, 2019 11:51:03 GMT -6 alsadius said:

Also, 3" belt should be a CL and not a CA, I'd think. (The CL cap is 12000 tons by this point in 1.03, so it's not a weight thing)

CL is limited to 6" guns. The only possibility to have CL with up to 8" guns is using protected cruiser armour scheme which allow maximum 2x2x8" main guns.

[alsadius]

Ah, I've been using protected cruiser scheme on my designs. Good catch. (Still, the "A" part of the designation feels like a total lie, even if that is the rule.)