Anyone experiment with Ultra-Cheap ships?

[BathTubAdmiral]

You're poll is missing the line "No. It's a bad idea because it wouldn't work ..."

[akosjaccik]

I'm not certain about "ultra-cheap" ships, but I do recall that one of my most memorable success in RtW1 as A-H (and one of my best overall campaigns) was achieved by a lone ~25k ton BC, A-B all forward 2x4, can't remember, maybe 16"? Ridiculously under-armored, but I believe capable of doing 32 knots, exactly as the destroyers (I utilized large, relatively gun-focused DDs with 2x4 launchers).
While I cranked out a fair number of these things experimenting with sacrificing displacement and armor and going for compact, fast, relatively cheap glass cannons, in this battle I only got one of these BCs along with the escorting destroyers. The battlecruiser managed to eat one or two torpedoes, sink two italian battleships, then - to add insult to injury - get back to the mission objective and destroy that too.
This however, was not a "statistical evidence" of course and so far I did not really do such a campaign in RtW2 yet.
But maybe in this month, might as well try. Still, I believe it is a distinct difference that while I did shape these ships up for "mass production", even as a one-trick pony they still were really good at the thing they did instead of being purely built to "being cheap".

Either way, can't really share the "quality over quantity always" statement, given how well the opposite worked for me. Not mentioning this isn't a two-state decision.

[aeson]

Aug 3, 2019 4:30:09 GMT -6 BathTubAdmiral said:

You're poll is missing the line "No. It's a bad idea because it wouldn't work ..."

And yet in Rule the Waves 1 I was able to blockade Britain as Germany before 1905 with a bunch of 9,000t monitors - which I could trade two for a proper battleship and still come out ahead on victory points - and as Austria-Hungary dominated Italy and France through the early 1910s with ~7,500t monitors. (The A-H run worked better since I could afford about 2 monitors to every Italian battleship whereas in the Germany game it was closer to 1.5:1 or possibly a bit less.)

You really ought to try a thing at least once, and more likely a couple times to get a better feel for how to work with it, before declaring that it won't work.

[euchrejack]

Thanks aeson, my campaign is also showing that the Quantity over Quality seems quite effective.

However, I was thinking that the poll needed updating, as I can seem many people truly hate the idea with vengence, hence the second option isn't accurate.

[noshurviverse]

Aug 2, 2019 2:46:10 GMT -6 DeMatt said:

...that doesn't have enough armor to keep out DD AP, let alone anything bigger. It's just begging to flash fire if it ever gets shot at.

The idea I had with these was that they could form a second battle line behind a lightly armed but heavily armored main battle line. The main battle line would soak the majority of enemy fire while these would be used purely for offensive purposes.

[euchrejack]

Results of the first poll:

[euchrejack]

I made a new poll.  In case it is not clear, from my perspective, semi-cheap vessels count for purposes of the poll.  So if a ship is built for a task, with the emphasis on doing that task as cheaply as possible, and thus cheaper than most contemporary vessels, I would count it.  Battlecruisers are the best example, because unlike Pre-Dreadnoughts, the requirements to even be a Battlecruiser are pretty steep.  Hence why on my A-H game, I focused on Pre-Dreadnoughts, since they could be much, much cheaper and worse, and the game would still call them Pre-Dreadnoughts.

[euchrejack]

Aug 3, 2019 4:30:09 GMT -6 BathTubAdmiral said:

You're poll is missing the line "No. It's a bad idea because it wouldn't work ..."

You will be happy to see that the new poll indeed has an option that should be to your liking, enjoy!

[Gerack]

Aug 3, 2019 2:48:33 GMT -6 rimbecano said:

Aug 2, 2019 15:04:09 GMT -6 Gerack said:

I play in admiral or rear admiral mode, so I rather have a few good ships I can take direct command of than lot's of small ships that will commit sudoku on the enemy and get torn to pieces.

sudoku

seppuku

The difference is rather important. :-)

Also not to be confused with:

sudo
Kuh
sudo Kuh

I'm sure it's sudoku what my ships commit...



Except my DDs. Those cowards will never get near an enemy ship. They rather see my capital ships get torn to pieces than risk their precious skin to save some unimportant 50.000 ton BBs.

[cogsandspigots]

Aug 1, 2019 20:14:32 GMT -6 polygon said:

It's a great idea until you actually have to fight the enemy. They can't run and they can't win, so what's the point?

Fisher, is that you?

[euchrejack]

Having won and lost wars due to the whims of the battle generator rather than the quality of my ships, I'm inclined to give up building "good" ship except as a hobby.

Battles: Mostly won and lost due to things beyond my control
Strategic Level: I can control that. I can make sure that I outnumber the enemy every time. I can make sure that I blockade the enemy every time. I can raid the enemy fairly reliably. I can dictate victory on the Strategic level. Battles, ha ha ha, enjoy watching ships get randomly torpedoed, mined, and have major and minor victories thrust upon you just because one side had 12 cargo ships, and the other side didn't luck into them. I'm not sure that aircraft is a great equalizer, since weather is still a variable. Radar is the only thing that really makes it more about the quality of the ships and not the randomness of battle.

[chaosblade]

Cheap Battleships? no. that is just asking to loose the ship and all hands, and more importantly the associated prestige.
Mind, I think there would be some narrow timeframe for coastal monitors, but frankly? BBs are too expensive and take too long and I can often get the late 10s early 20s last till the forties, specially if I have luck with the techs and get AoN and max torp protection.
Cheap destroyers yes, making DDEEs is a must have, specially if you manage to be too successful and sudenly everybody but you has sub fleets that are ~100 strong. (mentined before but 900 T, 25-26 kn with all ASW tech a couple of 4"guns and few torps (2-3 in one launcher) as you could get away cheap and easy to build and ideal to keep enemy subs in check (specially if before good air ASW) it is one of the reasons I tend to keep and refit old DDs (keep in mothballs) well, not all DDs but... and a refit is faster than a new build, so there is also that.

Bigger ships? I might go for cheap CLs and most of my CAs when I start building them again in the late 20s do feel more like cut down BCs, but they are their own thing and have their own reason for being

CVLs? might work, I don't use them too much, prefering to go full Fleet, and bigger air groups is always better, but.... they can work ASW as well, so....

[mycophobia]

Cheap throwaway DDs are something I been playing around with to. When I have a weaker navy I like having more cheap DDs that I can throw into enemy line to either disrupt them, or force them to turn away and thus allowing my better ships to do damage/escape. Any torpedo hit is a extra bonus.

[lukasdietrich]

Not cheap per say, but as nations like Germany, AH and Italy I do heavily invest in the coastal battleship idea even into the late game. I usually make them 20,000 tons. 11 or 12 inch guns depending on the RNG quality factor. 12" guns with a quality of 2 and modern 1940s shells can penetrate a LOT of armor. Usually 4x2 turrets.
Always short range and cramped crew.
I don't give them much speed as they are not meant to operate in the battle line but on their own. I do armor them well and give them the best fire control and torpedo protection I can.
I skimp a bit on AA to cut down on weight and since I rely that close to my own coasts for my own airbases to provide CAP.
Even then they operate in groups of anywhere between 4-10 so their combined AA is usually pretty high anyways and they usually have cruisers and DD's somewhere in the area.

I will start a thread and post some designs here soon. It would be nice to have a discussion on the merits of a coastal defense BB.

[euchrejack]

Aug 9, 2019 10:38:35 GMT -6 lukasdietrich said:

Not cheap per say, but as nations like Germany, AH and Italy I do heavily invest in the coastal battleship idea even into the late game. I usually make them 20,000 tons. 11 or 12 inch guns depending on the RNG quality factor. 12" guns with a quality of 2 and modern 1940s shells can penetrate a LOT of armor. Usually 4x2 turrets.
Always short range and cramped crew.
I don't give them much speed as they are not meant to operate in the battle line but on their own. I do armor them well and give them the best fire control and torpedo protection I can.
I skimp a bit on AA to cut down on weight and since I rely that close to my own coasts for my own airbases to provide CAP.
Even then they operate in groups of anywhere between 4-10 so their combined AA is usually pretty high anyways and they usually have cruisers and DD's somewhere in the area.

I will start a thread and post some designs here soon. It would be nice to have a discussion on the merits of a coastal defense BB.

Makes sense for Germany, AH and Italy.  They have a small geographic area to defend, and can win wars against many enemies by just having the largest fleet in their home area.

Cramped crew can be dangerous for longer wars, especially if there is a risk of being blockaded.  They generate unrest, although its not a problem for shorter wars.

For Germany, I had the idea of the 11-11-11 ship:  11" guns, 11" armor, 11 knots.

For other nations, the idea would be upgunned to the 12-12-12 ship: 12" guns, 12" armor, 12 knots.  Maybe even 12 guns total/secondary battery for a 12-12-12-12 ship.