|
Post by revillag on Jul 19, 2019 18:20:19 GMT -6
How the game simulate protected armor on cruisers. As I understand it, historical protected cruisers did not have side armor belts, rather they relied on a single protected armored deck to protect the vitals. In the game, CLs using the "protected" armor pattern have both belts and decks. In my current game, in 1900, CLs have 2" belts and 2" decks. Is this to simulate a single 2" protected deck?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 19, 2019 18:26:40 GMT -6
"Belt" on a vessel using the Protected Cruiser armor scheme represents the sloping outer portions of the protective armor deck while "Deck" represents the flatter central portion.
|
|
|
Post by centurionsofrome on Jul 19, 2019 21:08:53 GMT -6
Is it 2" effective thickness or 2" actual thickness?
|
|
|
Post by revillag on Jul 19, 2019 21:38:45 GMT -6
One other question. all of my legacy ships are overweight. What effect does being overweight have on a ship?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 19, 2019 21:49:06 GMT -6
One other question. all of my legacy ships are overweight. What effect does being overweight have on a ship? There's a flotation penalty dependent upon how overweight your ships are, and ships that are overweight are more likely to suffer negative commissioning events (e.g. failure to achieve design speed) than ships that aren't. Actual, I think.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 20, 2019 1:35:54 GMT -6
One other question. all of my legacy ships are overweight. What effect does being overweight have on a ship?
I think that RTW2 is same as RTW1 on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Nov 11, 2019 22:58:30 GMT -6
Understanding how protected cruiser armour is implement is of interest to me considering that I'm planning on limiting my cruisers to protected cruisers and my battleships to predreadnaughts in the next game I play...! I'm looking forward to those 1944 predreadnaugts actually...
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Nov 12, 2019 5:04:58 GMT -6
I'll add that the lack of belt armour can be demonstrated once AoN & CL armour are researched, as Protected Cruiser armour is lighter overall.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 13, 2019 18:42:31 GMT -6
Understanding how protected cruiser armour is implement is of interest to me considering that I'm planning on limiting my cruisers to protected cruisers and my battleships to predreadnaughts in the next game I play...! I'm looking forward to those 1944 predreadnaugts actually... Should be an interesting, if probably doomed, experiment. Not that that is a bad thing since it's just a game and you never know for sure until you try. Are you planning on sticking with coal powered ships throughout the game then since coal bunkers provided a significant part of the protection scheme for protected cruisers?
|
|
|
Post by liam556 on Nov 14, 2019 18:47:02 GMT -6
Understanding how protected cruiser armour is implement is of interest to me considering that I'm planning on limiting my cruisers to protected cruisers and my battleships to predreadnaughts in the next game I play...! I'm looking forward to those 1944 predreadnaugts actually... If you plan to make an ARR of this play through i have the place to put it. nws-online.proboards.com/thread/3143/challenge-runs
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Nov 20, 2019 9:22:17 GMT -6
Okay - so here is the question: In your opinions, is it alright to use Battlecruisers if I stick with 'protected cruiser' armour schemes?
Using wing turrets I can get a 6x10in broadside on a CA (8x10in when I develop triple turrets) climbing to 8 or 10 respectively if cross-deck fire is possible. However, this doesn't really match 8x13in guns of a true Battlecruiser with super-firing turrets... I figure I need to spend about three or four times as much on cruisers to counter a nation with Battlecruisers.
If I switch to BC's with protected armour schemes I'll be able to use larger guns and employ thicker armour (11in rather than 7.5in) that will be able to resist enemy guns at some ranges for the first half of the game... Of course, I'll still be limited to two turrets by the protected armour scheme (so 4x14in or 6x14in). It feels kindof like cheating to get the extra armour though.
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Nov 20, 2019 9:26:05 GMT -6
Understanding how protected cruiser armour is implement is of interest to me considering that I'm planning on limiting my cruisers to protected cruisers and my battleships to predreadnaughts in the next game I play...! I'm looking forward to those 1944 predreadnaugts actually... Should be an interesting, if probably doomed, experiment. Not that that is a bad thing since it's just a game and you never know for sure until you try. Are you planning on sticking with coal powered ships throughout the game then since coal bunkers provided a significant part of the protection scheme for protected cruisers? Yes... I've gotten used to coal power on everything larger than destroyers as a result of playing smaller nations. I'm increasingly less confident that this isn't a doomed prospect... my Battleships will have thicker armour but will be at a significant maneuvering disadvantage - it should be interesting. The cruisers... well, see my previous question - it'd seem that the development of the battlecruiser poses a dilemma. Understanding how protected cruiser armour is implement is of interest to me considering that I'm planning on limiting my cruisers to protected cruisers and my battleships to predreadnaughts in the next game I play...! I'm looking forward to those 1944 predreadnaugts actually... If you plan to make an ARR of this play through i have the place to put it. nws-online.proboards.com/thread/3143/challenge-runsIt won't be a detailed after-action report... but I'll definitely share something of a summary about the overall experience!
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 20, 2019 12:49:21 GMT -6
Okay - so here is the question: In your opinions, is it alright to use Battlecruisers if I stick with 'protected cruiser' armour schemes? Using wing turrets I can get a 6x10in broadside on a CA (8x10in when I develop triple turrets) climbing to 8 or 10 respectively if cross-deck fire is possible. However, this doesn't really match 8x13in guns of a true Battlecruiser with super-firing turrets... I figure I need to spend about three or four times as much on cruisers to counter a nation with Battlecruisers. If I switch to BC's with protected armour schemes I'll be able to use larger guns and employ thicker armour (11in rather than 7.5in) that will be able to resist enemy guns at some ranges for the first half of the game... Of course, I'll still be limited to two turrets by the protected armour scheme (so 4x14in or 6x14in). It feels kindof like cheating to get the extra armour though. I'd say go ahead and do it, but add in the limitation that they, like the battleships, have to use a predreadnought-type configuration.
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Nov 20, 2019 14:41:16 GMT -6
Okay - so here is the question: In your opinions, is it alright to use Battlecruisers if I stick with 'protected cruiser' armour schemes? Using wing turrets I can get a 6x10in broadside on a CA (8x10in when I develop triple turrets) climbing to 8 or 10 respectively if cross-deck fire is possible. However, this doesn't really match 8x13in guns of a true Battlecruiser with super-firing turrets... I figure I need to spend about three or four times as much on cruisers to counter a nation with Battlecruisers. If I switch to BC's with protected armour schemes I'll be able to use larger guns and employ thicker armour (11in rather than 7.5in) that will be able to resist enemy guns at some ranges for the first half of the game... Of course, I'll still be limited to two turrets by the protected armour scheme (so 4x14in or 6x14in). It feels kindof like cheating to get the extra armour though. I'd say go ahead and do it, but add in the limitation that they, like the battleships, have to use a predreadnought-type configuration. Interestingly, the editor allows wing-turrets for cruisers (even with protect-armour schemes)... so if I permit myself those... in many ways I'll be able to match the capabilities of later ships (with the exception of having less efficient designs with more antique armour schemes). Btw. The pre-dreadnaught can also benefit from AoN once it is developed. However, they don't support wing-turrets... which means my navy will probably gravitate towards non-superfiring battle cruisers if I permit the use of battle-cruisers...
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Nov 20, 2019 17:15:52 GMT -6
I'd say go ahead and do it, but add in the limitation that they, like the battleships, have to use a predreadnought-type configuration. Interestingly, the editor allows wing-turrets for cruisers (even with protect-armour schemes)... so if I permit myself those... in many ways I'll be able to match the capabilities of later ships (with the exception of having less efficient designs with more antique armour schemes). Btw. The pre-dreadnaught can also benefit from AoN once it is developed. However, they don't support wing-turrets... which means my navy will probably gravitate towards non-superfiring battle cruisers if I permit the use of battle-cruisers... I would stay at distance and focused on fire control and training gunnery. When you close the range even secondary guns will be much more dangerous with protected cruiser armour scheme. Another thing is certainly torpedoes, especially at worse weather.
|
|