Post your best ship designs here

[brucesim2003]

The second picture is gorgeous. The only thing is it shouldn't be flying a Jack at sea. The ensign on the mainmast would be all it would normally fly.

[spartan448]

Guess I'll share some of my late-game designs.


4

The Victory-class Battlecruiser - Nine 18" rifles, eighteen 5" rifles. torpedoes, and 31 knots. The armor always felt a bit on the thin side, and the class is way too expensive to be mass produced, but the class has always worked out surprisingly well. Still, I could only build three by the end of the game because Germany was making 10 CBs at a time and I had to move to cheaper designs to not be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers.

[joebob73]

Sept 12, 2016 9:34:47 GMT -6 spartan448 said:

Guess I'll share some of my late-game designs.


4

The Victory-class Battlecruiser - Nine 18" rifles, eighteen 5" rifles. torpedoes, and 31 knots. The armor always felt a bit on the thin side, and the class is way too expensive to be mass produced, but the class has always worked out surprisingly well. Still, I could only build three by the end of the game because Germany was making 10 CBs at a time and I had to move to cheaper designs to not be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers.

How did you get away with such incredibly thin turret armor? That's just begging for *KABOOM* to happen.

[spartan448]

By sitting at 20km and blasting away. Advanced directors + gunnery training is a wonderful thing.

[thatzenoguy]

Just advertising the subreddit here...

www.reddit.com/r/RuleTheWaves/

[jwsmith26]

Sept 12, 2016 9:34:47 GMT -6 spartan448 said:

Guess I'll share some of my late-game designs.


4

The Victory-class Battlecruiser - Nine 18" rifles, eighteen 5" rifles. torpedoes, and 31 knots. The armor always felt a bit on the thin side, and the class is way too expensive to be mass produced, but the class has always worked out surprisingly well. Still, I could only build three by the end of the game because Germany was making 10 CBs at a time and I had to move to cheaper designs to not be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers.

You're probably not looking for a critique but I would like to mention a couple of things.

Overall this looks like a nice powerful design, but I'd be concerned about the conning tower armor. Fredrik has mentioned that a penetrating hit to the conning tower (likely resulting in the loss of the commanding officers) will result in a litany very bad effects on the ability of your ship to function correctly. You mentioned that these ships are built to stand at a distance when engaging the enemy so the torpedoes are of questionable value. I'd scrap them and apply the weight savings to your conning tower armor.

Like joebob73, I would also be concerned about your turret armor. All it takes is one lucky hit and your very expensive ship is under water.

[thatzenoguy]

Turret hits rarely get flash fires lategame, you need citadel penetrations for it.

[oldpop2000]

Sept 12, 2016 9:45:10 GMT -6 joebob73 said:

Sept 12, 2016 9:34:47 GMT -6 spartan448 said:

Guess I'll share some of my late-game designs.


4

The Victory-class Battlecruiser - Nine 18" rifles, eighteen 5" rifles. torpedoes, and 31 knots. The armor always felt a bit on the thin side, and the class is way too expensive to be mass produced, but the class has always worked out surprisingly well. Still, I could only build three by the end of the game because Germany was making 10 CBs at a time and I had to move to cheaper designs to not be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers.

How did you get away with such incredibly thin turret armor? That's just begging for *KABOOM* to happen.

I don't want to be critical...... but I will.

1. Why the torpedo tubes? Extra weight and possible source of a nasty explosion.

2.  Without radar and spotting aircraft, your 18" inch guns will have hit rates at their long range of less than 5%.  Why not save the weight, increase the ROF and use 16" weapons.

3. Reduce the number of 5" turrets, another source of weight.

4. I agree that an increase in conning tower armor is vital. Command  and control in naval combat is critical.

5. Increase the ammo supply to 140 rounds.

6. With these adjustments, try to gain more speed. Speed is life.

Neat design, I am just conservative.

[galagagalaxian]

Sept 12, 2016 4:31:19 GMT -6 archelaos said:

BDW, as you see, I made Poland custom nation (Polish-Lithuanian-Cossack Commonwealth, to be precise). If only I knew how to properly modify War info to make it fully fledged custom nation, for now, I simply replaced Russia.

The editor makes modifying the WarInfo file somewhat less painful.

[spartan448]

Sept 12, 2016 12:01:19 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

I don't want to be critical...... but I will. 

1. Why the torpedo tubes? Extra weight and possible source of a nasty explosion.

2.  Without radar and spotting aircraft, your 18" inch guns will have hit rates at their long range of less than 5%.  Why not save the weight, increase the ROF and use 16" weapons.

3. Reduce the number of 5" turrets, another source of weight.

4. I agree that an increase in conning tower armor is vital. Command  and control in naval combat is critical.

5. Increase the ammo supply to 140 rounds.

6. With these adjustments, try to gain more speed. Speed is life.

Neat design, I am just conservative.

1. The Torpedo tubes where there for the same reason all my designs started having them - my entire navy, DDs included, absolutely ******* refuses to use their torpedoes, despite the fact that I will take on average twenty torpedo hits in a single battle providing ample evidence as to why they should be using torpedoes. So the idea was to match my opponents' torpedo output through sheer volume of available launchers.

2. Yeah but radar and spotting aircraft aren't in the game, plus it's not like hit rates up close are much better. I often don't see hit rates get close to 10% unless it's at closer ranges, and once the large-bore guns start showing up it becomes increasingly pointless to fight there instead of in your zone of immunity.

4. Historically the British believed CT armor to be relatively pointless. Command crew favored the unarmored bridge anyway, and the odds of something actually hitting your CT were not all that high, especially considering your odds of being hit at all. The King George V class for example had 4" CT armor and that was sufficient for what the class needed.

This ship was never really intended to be part of the battle line - I have my fast Battleships for that. These ships were made for a very specific purpose, and that purpose was hitting fleeting enemy CBs at range to bring their speed down to where the rest of the battlefleet could catch and kill them. For that purpose, I found the 18" guns to be better suited - accuracy is about the same as with the 16" rifles, and when they connect, they hit harder, increasing the chances of an enemy vessel being forced to reduce speed as a result of a shell hit.

[RoranHawkins]

Four of this battleship class essentially ended the Royal Navy in a three-year war. Most, if not all British capital ships were hit and eventually sunk by the Bayern class.

[oldpop2000]

Sept 12, 2016 16:29:15 GMT -6 spartan448 said:

Sept 12, 2016 12:01:19 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

I don't want to be critical...... but I will. 

1. Why the torpedo tubes? Extra weight and possible source of a nasty explosion.

2.  Without radar and spotting aircraft, your 18" inch guns will have hit rates at their long range of less than 5%.  Why not save the weight, increase the ROF and use 16" weapons.

3. Reduce the number of 5" turrets, another source of weight.

4. I agree that an increase in conning tower armor is vital. Command  and control in naval combat is critical.

5. Increase the ammo supply to 140 rounds.

6. With these adjustments, try to gain more speed. Speed is life.

Neat design, I am just conservative.

1. The Torpedo tubes where there for the same reason all my designs started having them - my entire navy, DDs included, absolutely ing refuses to use their torpedoes, despite the fact that I will take on average twenty torpedo hits in a single battle providing ample evidence as to why they should be using torpedoes. So the idea was to match my opponents' torpedo output through sheer volume of available launchers.

2. Yeah but radar and spotting aircraft aren't in the game, plus it's not like hit rates up close are much better. I often don't see hit rates get close to 10% unless it's at closer ranges, and once the large-bore guns start showing up it becomes increasingly pointless to fight there instead of in your zone of immunity.

4. Historically the British believed CT armor to be relatively pointless. Command crew favored the unarmored bridge anyway, and the odds of something actually hitting your CT were not all that high, especially considering your odds of being hit at all. The King George V class for example had 4" CT armor and that was sufficient for what the class needed.

This ship was never really intended to be part of the battle line - I have my fast Battleships for that. These ships were made for a very specific purpose, and that purpose was hitting fleeting enemy CBs at range to bring their speed down to where the rest of the battlefleet could catch and kill them. For that purpose, I found the 18" guns to be better suited - accuracy is about the same as with the 16" rifles, and when they connect, they hit harder, increasing the chances of an enemy vessel being forced to reduce speed as a result of a shell hit.

Well, if it works in the game, so be it. In a realistic situation, I would not built it the way you did, but that is just me. Enjoy

[spartan448]

When it comes to battlefleet muscle, this ship brought more brawn to the party than any other BB I had. A CB arms race with Germany meant I unfortunately couldn't build any more, but the one ship of the class still performed exactly as expected, making mincemeat of any enemy capital ship dumb enough to go broadside with this behemoth, while a 15" belt and 5" deck rendered it basically invulnerable to anything that wasn't firing torpedoes or at close range.

[jwsmith26]

Sept 12, 2016 16:29:15 GMT -6 spartan448 said:

Sept 12, 2016 12:01:19 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

4. Historically the British believed CT armor to be relatively pointless. Command crew favored the unarmored bridge anyway, and the odds of something actually hitting your CT were not all that high, especially considering your odds of being hit at all. The King George V class for example had 4" CT armor and that was sufficient for what the class needed.

This ship was never really intended to be part of the battle line - I have my fast Battleships for that. These ships were made for a very specific purpose, and that purpose was hitting fleeting enemy CBs at range to bring their speed down to where the rest of the battlefleet could catch and kill them. For that purpose, I found the 18" guns to be better suited - accuracy is about the same as with the 16" rifles, and when they connect, they hit harder, increasing the chances of an enemy vessel being forced to reduce speed as a result of a shell hit.

Spartan448, regarding point 4. I understand this is the case from an historical standpoint. I believe the Americans came to the same conclusion later on - that it just wasn't worth armoring the control tower. But my point is that in this game getting a penetrating hit on your control tower has major negative impact. 

I am curious about your torpedo problem. I have never seen my destroyers be reluctant to fire torps after the early years. Cruisers and capital ship are notoriously reluctant to fire  torps but not destroyers. Are you playing the game with the Varied tech option turned on? Have you invested "Torpedo technology" and/or "Light forces and torpedoes"? Are you playing at Admiral's level? Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to figure out why your torpedo attacks are insufficient compared to the enemy.

[spartan448]

Sept 12, 2016 18:02:31 GMT -6 jwsmith26 said:

Sept 12, 2016 16:29:15 GMT -6 spartan448 said:

4. Historically the British believed CT armor to be relatively pointless. Command crew favored the unarmored bridge anyway, and the odds of something actually hitting your CT were not all that high, especially considering your odds of being hit at all. The King George V class for example had 4" CT armor and that was sufficient for what the class needed.

This ship was never really intended to be part of the battle line - I have my fast Battleships for that. These ships were made for a very specific purpose, and that purpose was hitting fleeting enemy CBs at range to bring their speed down to where the rest of the battlefleet could catch and kill them. For that purpose, I found the 18" guns to be better suited - accuracy is about the same as with the 16" rifles, and when they connect, they hit harder, increasing the chances of an enemy vessel being forced to reduce speed as a result of a shell hit.

Spartan448, regarding point 4. I understand this is the case from an historical standpoint. I believe the Americans came to the same conclusion later on - that it just wasn't worth armoring the control tower. But my point is that in this game getting a penetrating hit on your control tower has major negative impact. 

I am curious about your torpedo problem. I have never seen my destroyers be reluctant to fire torps after the early years. Cruisers and capital ship are notoriously reluctant to fire  torps but not destroyers. Are you playing the game with the Varied tech option turned on? Have you invested "Torpedo technology" and/or "Light forces and torpedoes"? Are you playing at Admiral's level? Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to figure out why your torpedo attacks are insufficient compared to the enemy.

It's not just that they're insufficient, it's that they're not happening at all, even when I turn flotilla attacks on, even in the late game when torps have some range to them. And I'm playing at Rear Admiral level.