|
|
Post by jishmael on Jun 22, 2019 1:41:13 GMT -6
If I understand correctly AoN entails protecting mostly the citadel and the rest of the ship barely/not at all, thus reducing weight and halving the protection for non essential ship parts.
Magazine box concentrates Armour on the magazine, which I assume, not being the biggest boat buff, to be a subpart of the citadel, again halving protection for hits to anything but the citadel.
Am I correct to assume that if I combine the two let's say with a 16" belt I'll have 4" on non vitals, 8" on the citadel and 16" on the magazine inside the citadel?
I have used this configuration on CLs and they performed pretty beastly, but I'm unsure if my understanding is correct and if it's a smart idea for capitals?
Also on the topic of AoN and Magazine Box, said CLs have an overall of 12 single turrets spread all across the hull, wouldn't that design realistically make either scheme impossible?
|
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jun 22, 2019 2:13:50 GMT -6
All or nothing means generally 0 protection for non-vitals, not halved. In reality those are probably still have some minimal level of plating depending on the ship in question.(this simplifies things a little, actual AoN may still vary between ships, but that’s the principle)
The game treats AoN by giving the ship additional flotation, to represent the fact that ships design make minor floatation damage from non-vital area far less damaging, but any non-vital area will be assumed to have 0 armour. (Given now game handles belt and deck edge, this may also mean that outside of vitals, armour very quickly tapers from your max level to 0, I’m not sure the exact interaction in game)
Magazine box’s means if he viral citedel area, everywhere except the magazine will have their armour halved. Your citadel contain machinery space in addition to magazine, and also vital amount of flotation. Having these area hit will severely damage even an AoN ship, and machinery space damage will slow or stop the ship. Magazine hit however, will likely instantly blow up the ship.
So a ship with 16in belt, AoN and Magzine box will have 16in over magzine spaces(which get bigger as you have more turrets), 8in over any other citadel area like machinery space, and 0in in any non vital. This ship also receive addtional flotation points to represent that it is resistant against flooding of non-vital areas.
For most small single 6in turret actually don’t take that much magzine space, so the amount to armour may not be as much as you think. Especially with some shielded mounts, the shell can just be hoisted up from near the turret, with some stores in the turret already, the magzine space is large as in battleships.
This scheme works pretty well for cruiser since it helps prevent you from getting blown up, and let’s you occasionally deflect a few shell hitting near there magzine area. You can experiment with them on battleships, but do note that the weakened citizen area except the magzine May risk you sinking by repeated belt penetration from weaker guns that may not be able to do anything significant against a uniform main belt with AoN.
eg , if you do 16in magzine box, enemy 16in gun may be blocked from penetrating your magzine, (ofcourse they will still get you through rest of your citidel) something you can’t do with a uniform 12in belt. But older enemy ship with their 12in gun are now a threat to you since the rest of your citidel is only 8in, where as if you used a uniform 12in belt they would unable to penetrate.
Edit: Corrected my statement about magazine box saving scaling with # of turrets, thanks to dorn in pointing out that it is not the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 22, 2019 2:48:01 GMT -6
Does it mean adding some middle turrets to CL increase weight of armour if ship used magazine box?
Just asking as I am out unable to verify it in game.
It would be logical but I am not sure if this is modelled in game.
I start testing turrets hits of capital ships by heavy guns. I have still too small example so I will continue with statistics as I get to new war however it seems turrets hits are too often. Meantime there is average 33 % (ships with 3 and 4 turrets)
But the number will be more valuable as soon as a hit about 500 hits.
|
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jun 22, 2019 3:16:54 GMT -6
Does it mean adding some middle turrets to CL increase weight of armour if ship used magazine box? Just asking as I am out unable to verify it in game. It would be logical but I am not sure if this is modelled in game. I start testing turrets hits of capital ships by heavy guns. I have still too small example so I will continue with statistics as I get to new war however it seems turrets hits are too often. Meantime there is average 33 % (ships with 3 and 4 turrets) But the number will be more valuable as soon as a hit about 500 hits. My bad, should clarify that I didn’t test it in game either with regard to magzine box’s scaling. but inferred this from the fact that all forward armament does not give you a weight cut, but a weight reduction to belt/deck armour instead + the manual stating magzine increases as you add turret. This I assume this is the case as well with magzine box, in that it does not represent a flat cut, but a weight reduction based on magzine size. I also remember adding turret with magzine box added more weight than the turret itself, but that might be due to me overlooking effects on things like ammo. The comments about AoN should be quite accurate as to how it operate in game however |
|
|
|
Post by zabieru on Jun 23, 2019 2:03:15 GMT -6
The weight of the turret in the turret box is, I think, only guns+machinery+turret/turret-top armor. It does not include ammo, and does not include any changes to belt armor necessitated by changes to the turret layout. Therefore, if you have 200 tons free and you add a turret with a listed weight of 105 tons, you should expect to have less than 95 tons left. This makes testing the impact on the belt/deck weight from magazine box tricky.
Because magazine box works by halving the non-magazine armor rather than doubling the magazine armor, I don't like to use it on CLs. They can only have <4in belts anyway, so your options are a 3.5in belt, or a 1.75in belt with 3.5in over the magazine. Given the importance of speed to a CL (and thus the need to protect your machinery spaces as well), and also since 1.75in isn't enough to prevent splintering, I'd rather have a uniform belt than a magazine-boxed one. I figure even if I have to drop down to 3in or 2.5in, that's still more useful against destroyer guns or secondary/tertiaries than 1.75in is.
It does start to become a lot more viable for fast CAs, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 23, 2019 8:47:12 GMT -6
Also, personnel weight isn't included in anything. Adding even something as simple as LAA guns will increase mass by more than the listed amount.
Regarding CLs and magazine boxes, depends what the ship is for. If I want a really basic 3kt raider to meet a "Build 10" mission, a 2" belt with mag box might be tempting - remember, the box cuts deck mass too, so that 1" deck that's soaking up all your free mass gets a third lighter. But if I want a fleet CL, I'd rather get 2" all over in most cases. (Note that 1.75" does dramatically reduce splintering, presumably by 7/8ths, so it's not all bad).
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 23, 2019 9:09:07 GMT -6
Number of turrets has no effect on armour if using magazine box (different protection for magazines and rest of citadel).
|
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Jun 23, 2019 14:54:06 GMT -6
(Note that 1.75" does dramatically reduce splintering, presumably by 7/8ths, so it's not all bad). Wait, so armor thinner than 2” reduces splinter damage? I always assumed it was a simple cutoff. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 23, 2019 17:43:10 GMT -6
(Note that 1.75" does dramatically reduce splintering, presumably by 7/8ths, so it's not all bad). Wait, so armor thinner than 2” reduces splinter damage? I always assumed it was a simple cutoff. You can go by half of inch but any armour reduce damage and even 1" of armour can reduce splitner damage. 2" of armour should stop splinters completely. |
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Jun 24, 2019 9:24:56 GMT -6
The thing which hasn't been fully explained to me:
How does Narrow vs. Full belt interact with the following:
- All or Nothing
- Belt Extended/Deck extended
So, for instance... what happens if I select as much belt extended armour as belt armour, and select a narrow belt... there are weight savings...
...does this have to do with the height of the belt and probabilities of what happens after impact - or have I found a way to cheat the calculations?
|
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 24, 2019 10:16:19 GMT -6
Should be simple enough to test that. Go into the designer, change belt width, and see what happens to weights.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 24, 2019 10:30:00 GMT -6
The thing which hasn't been fully explained to me: How does Narrow vs. Full belt interact with the following: - All or Nothing All or Nothing and Narrow Belt are incompatible within the game; a ship with a Narrow Belt cannot benefit from All or Nothing's increased resistance to flooding from the ends.
Narrow Belt does three things:
- It reduces the weight per inch of thickness of the main belt by about 21.5% - It reduces the weight per inch of thickness of the extended belt by about 25% - It changes the belt coverage so that some things which would normally be protected by the main belt are instead protected by the extended belt while some things that would normally be protected by the extended belt aren't protected at all.
The implication of the weight changes is that a Narrow Belt with armored extensions covers roughly 77% as much area as a full belt with armored extensions, or about 24% more area than the main belt alone or a 'true' All or Nothing belt.
As far as I am aware, there is no interaction between the chosen belt scheme and deck armor.
A uniform-thickness narrow belt is as heavy as a full belt with armored extensions and the same maximum thickness when the full belt's armored extensions are about 40% as thick as the main belt, i.e. 10" B / 10" BE narrow belt is about as heavy as 10" B / 4" BE full belt. If you were not going to have extensions thicker than 40% of the main belt thickness, then there are no weight savings to be had in using a uniform-thickness narrow belt instead of a full belt, if the maximum thickness of the narrow belt is the same as that of the full belt.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 24, 2019 11:06:59 GMT -6
Think about uniform thickness narrow belt as proto-AoN.
It give you advantage of full or no armour but you do not any flotation advantage as true AoN which works with protection of citadel which has enough buoyancy.
I find it quite interesting choice for predreadnoughts, early dreadnoughts and especially early battlecruisers. It helps to proteck intakes (BE is used in game) and it seems to me that it preserve speed better.
You can think about narrow belt as not so high or deep in ship.
Look at armour belt of HMS Rodney, her belt is quite shallow.
|
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 24, 2019 23:18:23 GMT -6
Narrow belt doesn't deal with how much lenght the belt covers, it deals with the total height of the hull the belt covers, making the ship a lot more vulnerable to incoming fire that hit critical areas.
Personally I find it totally not worth it, unless we're talking of very niche ships built for very niche roles as a desperate measure of weight/cost saving when there's nothing more that can be done to make the ship cheaper or when other cost-saving options as short range or cramped spaces aren't viable or worthwhile (playing on an extremely tight budget nation as Spain, a nation with important colonial assets that rule out short range or cramped spaces, yet needing ship numbers with desperation)...and that only as a stopgap until you can afford properly protected ships.
|
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 25, 2019 8:27:26 GMT -6
Question for the hivemind - for desperation weight-saving, would you rather use a narrow belt or low freeboard?
|
|
