Cross-deck fire and all-forward armament

[alsadius]

Two small bugs/oddities I found while researching this article I wrote for the wiki.

1) The description on the tech for cross-deck fire is "Enables cross deck fire for staggered wing turrets (positions D & F or E & G)". However, the positions actually able to use cross-deck are F, G, J, and K. Also, the turrets do not need to be staggered - F/J(both port) and G/K(both starboard) configurations are legal, which can be handy on CVs. The description should be re-written, to something like "Enables cross-deck fire for wing turrets (positions F/G and/or J/K)". 

2) All-forward armament only works for turret locations A, B, and L. Turret locations 1, 2, C, D, and E have "forward" in their name, but they take away a ship's all-forward bonus. 1/2/D/E are wing turrets, so I could see not including those, but C ought to work the same as L does. 

I'm on v1.05, if that makes a difference. 

[aeson]

Also, the turrets do not need to be staggered - F/J(both port) and G/K(both starboard) configurations are legal, which can be handy on CVs.

In v1.05b, I see an "Error: Turrets are unbalanced" message when I try creating a non-carrier design which uses the FJ or GK pairs rather than the FK or GJ pairs for cross-deck fire, and I don't recall this being in different in earlier versions of the game. Did you check this with a non-carrier design?

Turret locations 1, 2, C, D, and E have "forward" in their name, but they take away a ship's all-forward bonus. 1/2/D/E are wing turrets, so I could see not including those, but C ought to work the same as L does.

C is the only one of these that I feel could be worth adding to the set of turrets that work for the all-forwards configuration; it's basically interchangeable with L and Q.

As to allowing the wings and chasers to be used while obtaining a short citadel bonus, I see very little justification for it. The only reason to use a three-turret all-forwards configuration is to save on tonnage costs - A*Y has strictly-better arcs than A*!Y, where * and !Y are centerline turrets other than A and Y, and A*Y doesn't even cost any more tonnage than A*!Y unless A*!Y is a configuration that gets a short citadel bonus and you've developed the all-forwards tech - and using the bowchasers or wing turrets runs directly counter to that since they're by far the least tonnage-efficient positions whether you want a given number of guns on the broadside or in total. The only reason I can see to try for a short citadel bonus with the DE (or FG) pair is if you've somehow developed the all-forwards configuration while still being restricted to the A and Y centerline turrets, which strikes me as rather unlikely.

All-forward armament only works for turret locations A, B, and L.

ABQ is also a valid configuration for the short citadel bonus.

[alsadius]

Jul 7, 2019 0:25:08 GMT -6 aeson said:

In v1.05b, I see an "Error: Turrets are unbalanced" message when I try creating a non-carrier design which uses the FJ or GK pairs rather than the FK or GJ pairs for cross-deck fire, and I don't recall this being in different in earlier versions of the game. Did you check this with a non-carrier design?

Okay, but carriers are still ships. I suppose I phrased my comment above poorly, but the tech doesn't limit you to staggered configurations. The ship class usually does, but not the tech, so it shouldn't be in the tech description.

Jul 7, 2019 0:25:08 GMT -6 aeson said:

C is the only one of these that I feel could be worth adding to the set of turrets that work for the all-forwards configuration; it's basically interchangeable with L and Q.

As to allowing the wings and chasers to be used while obtaining a short citadel bonus, I see very little justification for it. The only reason to use a three-turret all-forwards configuration is to save on tonnage costs - A*Y has strictly-better arcs than A*!Y, where * and !Y are centerline turrets other than A and Y, and A*Y doesn't even cost any more tonnage than A*!Y unless A*!Y is a configuration that gets a short citadel bonus and you've developed the all-forwards tech - and using the bowchasers or wing turrets runs directly counter to that since they're by far the least tonnage-efficient positions whether you want a given number of guns on the broadside or in total. The only reason I can see to try for a short citadel bonus with the DE (or FG) pair is if you've somehow developed the all-forwards configuration while still being restricted to the A and Y centerline turrets, which strikes me as rather unlikely.

I agree, giving it to 1/2/D/E would be a bit weird. But perhaps the tech description should then say "(positions A/B/C/L)" or whatever. Or have a little bonus marker pop up like there is for AoN.

Jul 7, 2019 0:25:08 GMT -6 aeson said:

ABQ is also a valid configuration for the short citadel bonus.

I tested ABQ, and it didn't work for me. I'll check again once I'm done this battle.

[aeson]

Jul 7, 2019 7:09:11 GMT -6 alsadius said:

I tested ABQ, and it didn't work for me. I'll check again once I'm done this battle.

Then either there is a bug in v1.05 that wasn't present in any previous version or in v1.05b, or you are mistaken:

Okay, but carriers are still ships. I suppose I phrased my comment above poorly, but the tech doesn't limit you to staggered configurations. The ship class usually does, but not the tech, so it shouldn't be in the tech description.

Carriers have a lot of exceptions to the normal rules.

- They're the only ships for which unbalanced wing turrets are legal.

- They're the only ships to which you can add 7" or heavier guns in a refit without rebuilding a turret.

- They're the only ships which cannot use centerline turrets.

- They're the only ship type for which new construction is always required to use one specific armor scheme.

- They're the only major warship type which can be built without armor.

- They're the only ship type which is not required to carry an armament.

[alsadius]

I just re-tested it. ABQ gets a discount, but AQ and ABLQ do not.

I've tweaked the wiki page to read as follows:

Special Rules
Cross-Deck Fire
Cross-deck fire may be used to give turrets in positions F, G, J, and/or K an expanded firing arc that allows them to shoot at the other side of the ship. This is especially useful in the early game, before ships may use increased numbers of centreline turrets.

Turrets F and G will interfere with each other in cross-deck configurations, and cross-deck fire may not be used if both F and G contain turrets. The same is true of J and K.

Note that all ship classes except CV/CVL must use balanced turrets. As such, the only allowed cross-deck configurations for most classes are F+K and G+J.

Note that the tech description for cross-deck fire is incorrect as of v1.05.

All Forward Armament
The technology for all-forward armament gives a 5% weight reduction for belt and deck armour to a ship whose main battery turrets are in any of the following configurations:

A
A+B
A+L
A+B+L
A+B+Q

No other configurations work, even for positions 1/2/C/D/E which have "forward" in their names. Only the main belt and deck weights are affected - belt extended and deck extended gain no benefit.

I think that covers all the bases as understood right now?

[aeson]

To my understanding of the system, that is correct. You may want to specify that the 5% reduction in belt and deck armor weight is only applied to B/D armor and does not affect BE/DE armor.