|
Post by dorn on Jun 25, 2019 9:06:57 GMT -6
Question for the hivemind - for desperation weight-saving, would you rather use a narrow belt or low freeboard? Narrow belt for cruisers, for capital ships I sometimes use narrow belt but not for saving weigth, but for different armour distribution. Low freeboard is interesting for small nations but I would rather use short range and cramped accomodation if it is possible. Low freeboard gives just too many disadvantages. The same is true for narrow belt if your extended belt is not increased.
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 25, 2019 10:33:30 GMT -6
Remember that narrow belt also reduces BE mass, so the BE is getting narrowed as well.
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Jun 25, 2019 10:43:37 GMT -6
Question for the hivemind - for desperation weight-saving, would you rather use a narrow belt or low freeboard? I would be very hesitant to use low freeboard past the very early years. Once AP rounds mature at all they make knife fights a game of getting the most hits in first because hits at close range will almost always penetrate anyway. And if the weather isn’t perfect (as it generally isn’t) low freeboard makes that more difficult. For the first few years where armor generally overmatches guns things are a little different, but then you generally aren’t having to make those decisions anyway.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 25, 2019 12:38:09 GMT -6
Question for the hivemind - for desperation weight-saving, would you rather use a narrow belt or low freeboard? If I'm "desperate" for weight savings, why not both?
Low freeboard saves more tonnage on slow ships than on fast ships, is incompatible with long/extreme range, and leaves a ship more susceptible to adverse weather conditions; narrow belt saves more tonnage on heavily-armored ships than on lightly-armored ships, is incompatible with 'true' All or Nothing, and probably leaves most of the area covered by the BE under the normal belt scheme unprotected. This would suggest low freeboard should be less attractive later in the game since typical design speeds are higher later in the game while narrow belt should be more attractive later in the game since typical belt armor thicknesses are greater later in the game and belt weight per inch of thickness increases with increasing design speed. Which one I would prefer for "desperation" weight savings depends on how much tonnage each saves, what other options I have available for cutting tonnage costs, and what I want or need out of the ship in question.
Also, two example design sets created in a 1949 save state for illustration: Left is true AoN normal freeboard, middle is true AoN low freeboard, right is narrow AoN normal freeboard; top is 30 knots, bottom is 21 knots.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 25, 2019 14:16:17 GMT -6
Question for the hivemind - for desperation weight-saving, would you rather use a narrow belt or low freeboard? If I'm "desperate" for weight savings, why not both?
Low freeboard saves more tonnage on slow ships than on fast ships, is incompatible with long/extreme range, and leaves a ship more susceptible to adverse weather conditions; narrow belt saves more tonnage on heavily-armored ships than on lightly-armored ships, is incompatible with 'true' All or Nothing, and probably leaves most of the area covered by the BE under the normal belt scheme unprotected. This would suggest low freeboard should be less attractive later in the game since typical design speeds are higher later in the game while narrow belt should be more attractive later in the game since typical belt armor thicknesses are greater later in the game and belt weight per inch of thickness increases with increasing design speed. Which one I would prefer for "desperation" weight savings depends on how much tonnage each saves, what other options I have available for cutting tonnage costs, and what I want or need out of the ship in question.
Also, two example design sets created in a 1949 save state for illustration:
Left is true AoN normal freeboard, middle is true AoN low freeboard, right is narrow AoN normal freeboard; top is 30 knots, bottom is 21 knots.
I think later both options are just too bad to consider. Narrow belt cancel advantage of AoN so even if savings of tonnage is large, it is not worth the costs. Low freeboard is quite similar not mentioning advantages.
Later when large docks are available it is not matter of tonnage but funds and the savings are not so great. Early it is quite different as it is quite often that tonnage is limiting factor.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jun 25, 2019 14:21:36 GMT -6
I think depending on location, low free board is not that bad at all early-mid game. AH can comfortable use low freeboard + short range to offset their fund limitation early on.
In calm seas the problems with low freeboard are mostly eliminated, and you can further mitigate it with turreted secondaries earlier on.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 25, 2019 17:14:47 GMT -6
I think later both options are just too bad to consider. Narrow belt cancel advantage of AoN so even if savings of tonnage is large, it is not worth the costs. Low freeboard is quite similar not mentioning advantages.
Later when large docks are available it is not matter of tonnage but funds and the savings are not so great. Early it is quite different as it is quite often that tonnage is limiting factor.
The question posed by alsadius was which of the two we would prefer to use if we were "desperate" for weight savings. Later in the game, I would very definitely prefer to use narrow belt for weight savings, because low freeboard does approximately nothing for a fast ship - the example 48,700t 30kn battleship design I posted above gained only ~500 tons using low instead of normal freeboard but over 1,900 tons for using a narrow instead of a normal belt despite carrying 'only' 12.5" of belt armor; even the slower 48,700t 21kn battleship would 'only' gain about 1,200 tons using low freeboard as opposed to about 2,100 tons using a narrow instead of a normal belt, and 21 knots is very, very slow for a modern ship in 1949 when those designs were drawn up (although I suspect it'd still work, based on my experience in Rule the Waves). Would I sacrifice other things before using either low freeboard or narrow belt later in the game? Almost certainly yes, but if it's the only way to fit something that approximates the ship that I want onto the budget that I have I might still go for it.
There's also some cases where even a small tonnage or cost savings is probably more valuable than what you lose for using low freeboard or narrow belt. Small raiding cruisers and avisos aren't really meant to be particularly effective combatants, they're meant to be cheap surface raiders and station tonnage. Are you saving much by cutting a few corners? Probably not ... but you're also not really gaining anything by not cutting a few corners, either - it's not like a full belt or 'true' all-or-nothing means much of anything to a 2,100t raiding cruiser or a 2,400t colonial cruiser with the minimum 1" / 1" armor protection anyways, and before you get magazine boxes it might even save you enough tonnage to do something worthwhile with.
|
|
|
Post by trifler on Jun 25, 2019 20:36:48 GMT -6
I find myself more willing to use low freeboard on corvettes.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 26, 2019 2:31:27 GMT -6
I agree with you however later in game it is usually better to find savings elsewhere, eg. armour of CT, 0.5" of deck, secondaries, one gun less etc. than change armour scheme to narrow belt.
|
|
|
Post by jishmael on Jun 28, 2019 2:24:24 GMT -6
. 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. Shouldn't it be even better on battleships? The combination of mag box and aon allowed me to build ridiculously fast and gunned CL for the early 1910s, if I get hit by a 13" or above shell I am under the assumption that less armor might actually help by creating more pass-through hits, otherwise they battle cls and dds pretty much only and I haven't seen any issues with dmg intake. But on battleships, with the additional flotation offered by the superior weight, the combination of aon and box let's me build a fast bb with enough armor to be immune to any gun in the world at my point in the game, that will take more water from no vital hits, but have much more flotation than a CL to counter that effect. I do see a certain risk of ending with a floating gun battery as everything but the turrets and mag get shot out, but as long as there's fleet support available and air power is not a thing, I think this will be more of an issue to the enemy then me. (realistically even without air that's a mission kill and a scuttle, but AFAIK that's not in the game as long as it doesn't sink)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 28, 2019 4:08:44 GMT -6
. 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. Shouldn't it be even better on battleships? The combination of mag box and aon allowed me to build ridiculously fast and gunned CL for the early 1910s, if I get hit by a 13" or above shell I am under the assumption that less armor might actually help by creating more pass-through hits, otherwise they battle cls and dds pretty much only and I haven't seen any issues with dmg intake. But on battleships, with the additional flotation offered by the superior weight, the combination of aon and box let's me build a fast bb with enough armor to be immune to any gun in the world at my point in the game, that will take more water from no vital hits, but have much more flotation than a CL to counter that effect. I do see a certain risk of ending with a floating gun battery as everything but the turrets and mag get shot out, but as long as there's fleet support available and air power is not a thing, I think this will be more of an issue to the enemy then me. (realistically even without air that's a mission kill and a scuttle, but AFAIK that's not in the game as long as it doesn't sink) If your magazine is hit, it is finished if you are not lucky and flooded it earlier and I do not think RTW simulate this. You cannot have magazine box in 10s, it is early 20s technology. I cannot see reason for magazine box protection for battleships as magazine hits are very seldom. And having just half protection for rest of ships means against heavy guns almost to have no protection.
|
|
|
Post by jishmael on Jun 28, 2019 5:14:42 GMT -6
Shouldn't it be even better on battleships? The combination of mag box and aon allowed me to build ridiculously fast and gunned CL for the early 1910s, if I get hit by a 13" or above shell I am under the assumption that less armor might actually help by creating more pass-through hits, otherwise they battle cls and dds pretty much only and I haven't seen any issues with dmg intake. But on battleships, with the additional flotation offered by the superior weight, the combination of aon and box let's me build a fast bb with enough armor to be immune to any gun in the world at my point in the game, that will take more water from no vital hits, but have much more flotation than a CL to counter that effect. I do see a certain risk of ending with a floating gun battery as everything but the turrets and mag get shot out, but as long as there's fleet support available and air power is not a thing, I think this will be more of an issue to the enemy then me. (realistically even without air that's a mission kill and a scuttle, but AFAIK that's not in the game as long as it doesn't sink) If your magazine is hit, it is finished if you are not lucky and flooded it earlier and I do not think RTW simulate this. You cannot have magazine box in 10s, it is early 20s technology. I cannot see reason for magazine box protection for battleships as magazine hits are very seldom. And having just half protection for rest of ships means against heavy guns almost to have no protection.
I see your argument regarding the bbs and will give feedback as soon as I got to try those designs in battle. But (I'd be more precise but I'm at work) I am very very very sure my usa save contains aon and magazine box in about 1912. But I'll check at home
|
|
|
Post by thecallidus on Jun 28, 2019 6:53:34 GMT -6
My main argument for magzine box BBs is, that you actualy can get Immunity Zones on your ships. In my current USA campaigne they worked well. Yes they were prone to more flooding or engine dmg but they could take it. Your average dmg recived feels higher but your turrets can take the hits even from Big guns. And you can designe them in a way that they upgrade well even into the 50s. Or atleast I could. The Problem is I never lost anything in that playthrough that was bigger than a CL in combat so It's hard to judge how effective my BBs realy were.
Here my first line 1928. In its current state 1947.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 28, 2019 12:36:30 GMT -6
My main argument for magzine box BBs is, that you actualy can get Immunity Zones on your ships. In my current USA campaigne they worked well. Yes they were prone to more flooding or engine dmg but they could take it. Your average dmg recived feels higher but your turrets can take the hits even from Big guns. And you can designe them in a way that they upgrade well even into the 50s. Or atleast I could. The Problem is I never lost anything in that playthrough that was bigger than a CL in combat so It's hard to judge how effective my BBs realy were.
Here my first line 1928. In its current state 1947.
You can get immunity zones onto your battleships without using magazine box protection. The 14" design is a fast battleship I laid down in 1918 and commissioned in 1921, shown for refit in 1950; the 15" design is a 1950 sketch for a new fast battleship that isn't going to get laid down because I neither need nor can pay for it at the present time. Assuming my armor's as good as yours, both of these have zones of immunity against your 16"/Q1 guns, the old 14" battleship from about 17,100 to 21,900 yards and the 15" design sketch from about 13,600 to 24,600 yards; the 14" battleship's zone of immunity against your 16"/Q1 is narrower than might be desirable but is nevertheless functional while the 15" design sketch's zone of immunity is more than adequate for practical purposes, and both of them do it without using magazine box protection.
These, mind you, are fast battleship designs; slower ships could be better armored and carry more powerful armaments.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 28, 2019 12:53:03 GMT -6
Hmph. 22'' of turret armor on that last one and 16'' belt?... Well, maybe my design principles are different, but I'd rather have thicker decks...you're giving belts and turret armor that no BB other than the yamatos shipped around while there were WW1 designs with stronger decks...
(I personally aim for at least 7'' of deck, 7.5'' when possible, belt and turret armor are decided after that)
|
|