keris
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by keris on Oct 5, 2016 11:38:05 GMT -6
New to the game, but here's my favorite design so far (Gotta say this game is the best $35 I've spent in recent memory) This ship has saved my bacon so many times. I designed these ships because for some reason, the AI likes to run/ turn away from me and very rarely was I able to bring my full firepower when I was using rear turrets. Kurama and it's sister Hiei have taken down a combined 12 BC and BB between them, mostly UK and Russian. I was lucky enough to get 14 quality 1's fairly early in the game and was able to lay these down around '17 and after some upgrading they stayed relevant through '50. One Later game battle it was 4 v 2. Two UK BB and two BC. My two Kurama class managed to sink all 4 and (barely) limp home to port. The tonnage difference was something like 3:1 or better in that one. Luckily it was a coastal bombardment mission and they hadn't been all grouped at the beginning. I eventually enlarged to 44k tons and up-armed/armored the design after I got 17s and two of those were successful in wrecking about 75% of the Italian navy with just some DDs for screening and to finish off the cripples.
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Oct 5, 2016 14:15:43 GMT -6
New to the game, but here's my favorite design so far (Gotta say this game is the best $35 I've spent in recent memory) This ship has saved my bacon so many times. I designed these ships because for some reason, the AI likes to run/ turn away from me and very rarely was I able to bring my full firepower when I was using rear turrets. Kurama and it's sister Hiei have taken down a combined 12 BC and BB between them, mostly UK and Russian. I was lucky enough to get 14 quality 1's fairly early in the game and was able to lay these down around '17 and after some upgrading they stayed relevant through '50. One battle it was 4 v 2. Two UK BB and two BC. My two Kurama class managed to sink all 4 and (barely) limp home to port. Luckily it was a coastal bombardment mission and they hadn't been all grouped at the beginning. I eventually enlarged to 44k tons and up-armed/armored the design after I got 17s and two of those were successful in wrecking about 75% of the Italian navy with just some DDs for screening and to finish off the cripples. That's a great and very aggressive design! Really a true fast battleship, and towards late game it's really the sort of combination you want, especially since it'll often be matched against BCs that will be at a disadvantage against a ship this well-armored. It does have one weakness you want to be careful about (other than the lack of aft armament, though that's less of a weakness and more a limitation) - the turret (primary and secondary) armor. There's both the cost of losing a turret when your firepower is concentrated in just two of them, and then there's the explosion risk - the large secondaries are definitely a risk on that too, since those have big magazines. I would actually trade some of the belt armor for more on weapons - personally, I tend to put at least 1 inch more on main turrets than on the belt. Sounds like these ships worked out really well for you!
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Oct 5, 2016 15:48:26 GMT -6
New to the game, but here's my favorite design so far (Gotta say this game is the best $35 I've spent in recent memory) This ship has saved my bacon so many times. I designed these ships because for some reason, the AI likes to run/ turn away from me and very rarely was I able to bring my full firepower when I was using rear turrets. Kurama and it's sister Hiei have taken down a combined 12 BC and BB between them, mostly UK and Russian. I was lucky enough to get 14 quality 1's fairly early in the game and was able to lay these down around '17 and after some upgrading they stayed relevant through '50. One Later game battle it was 4 v 2. Two UK BB and two BC. My two Kurama class managed to sink all 4 and (barely) limp home to port. The tonnage difference was something like 3:1 or better in that one. Luckily it was a coastal bombardment mission and they hadn't been all grouped at the beginning. I eventually enlarged to 44k tons and up-armed/armored the design after I got 17s and two of those were successful in wrecking about 75% of the Italian navy with just some DDs for screening and to finish off the cripples. Your ship has quite an interesting steampunk look, keris. If you have one, I'd really like to see a side view.
|
|
|
Post by RoranHawkins on Oct 5, 2016 17:42:22 GMT -6
I always end up making at least half a dozen to a dozen of these every game I play, whatever nation I pick. Their RoF overwhelms any CL they can encounter and even some CA's while their armour layout allows them to shrug off blows which would sink similar CL's. They're also very upgradable, with large speed increases through machinery or copying designs with new machinery. If any happen to survive to late game they make excellent colonian guboats or refitted torpedo barrage ships.
|
|
keris
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by keris on Oct 5, 2016 20:58:54 GMT -6
New to the game, but here's my favorite design so far (Gotta say this game is the best $35 I've spent in recent memory) This ship has saved my bacon so many times. I designed these ships because for some reason, the AI likes to run/ turn away from me and very rarely was I able to bring my full firepower when I was using rear turrets. Kurama and it's sister Hiei have taken down a combined 12 BC and BB between them, mostly UK and Russian. I was lucky enough to get 14 quality 1's fairly early in the game and was able to lay these down around '17 and after some upgrading they stayed relevant through '50. One Later game battle it was 4 v 2. Two UK BB and two BC. My two Kurama class managed to sink all 4 and (barely) limp home to port. The tonnage difference was something like 3:1 or better in that one. Luckily it was a coastal bombardment mission and they hadn't been all grouped at the beginning. I eventually enlarged to 44k tons and up-armed/armored the design after I got 17s and two of those were successful in wrecking about 75% of the Italian navy with just some DDs for screening and to finish off the cripples. Your ship has quite an interesting steampunk look, keris. If you have one, I'd really like to see a side view. Sorry, haven't really got one of those and the couple I've tried to make didn't come out very well. It only ended up looking that way because I got tired of messing with the little lines and just went with what I had.
|
|
keris
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by keris on Oct 5, 2016 21:10:24 GMT -6
New to the game, but here's my favorite design so far (Gotta say this game is the best $35 I've spent in recent memory) IMG This ship has saved my bacon so many times. I designed these ships because for some reason, the AI likes to run/ turn away from me and very rarely was I able to bring my full firepower when I was using rear turrets. Kurama and it's sister Hiei have taken down a combined 12 BC and BB between them, mostly UK and Russian. I was lucky enough to get 14 quality 1's fairly early in the game and was able to lay these down around '17 and after some upgrading they stayed relevant through '50. One battle it was 4 v 2. Two UK BB and two BC. My two Kurama class managed to sink all 4 and (barely) limp home to port. Luckily it was a coastal bombardment mission and they hadn't been all grouped at the beginning. I eventually enlarged to 44k tons and up-armed/armored the design after I got 17s and two of those were successful in wrecking about 75% of the Italian navy with just some DDs for screening and to finish off the cripples. That's a great and very aggressive design! Really a true fast battleship, and towards late game it's really the sort of combination you want, especially since it'll often be matched against BCs that will be at a disadvantage against a ship this well-armored. It does have one weakness you want to be careful about (other than the lack of aft armament, though that's less of a weakness and more a limitation) - the turret (primary and secondary) armor. There's both the cost of losing a turret when your firepower is concentrated in just two of them, and then there's the explosion risk - the large secondaries are definitely a risk on that too, since those have big magazines. I would actually trade some of the belt armor for more on weapons - personally, I tend to put at least 1 inch more on main turrets than on the belt. Sounds like these ships worked out really well for you! Thanks for the tips! Next time I think I'll go for smaller but more armored secondaries. 8's are kind of overkill in most situations. I do realize I got lucky with having turret armor that thin on these ships without any critical losses. There were a couple battles where one or both turrets were out of the fight by the time things started winding down. I also tend to devote way too much tonnage to extra ammo on the main guns (I hate having to turn away because I don't have anything left to throw at the enemy). Does having more increase chance of magazine detonations?
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Oct 5, 2016 22:54:16 GMT -6
Hmm, that's a good question! I don't think it increases the chance, though, since the size of the magazines isn't that large and they would be buried under the main belt anyway. It might/should affect the severity of the explosion, but again, I think that's more of a function of the shell caliber your ship uses, plus tech. I've not really seen much difference, so I wouldn't worry too much about magazine size (but I also wouldn't increase it much for large guns either). I've also noticed that a magazine explosion from an actual direct hit on a magazine is a lot more likely to happen from a torpedo (especially when a ship doesn't have torpedo protection), rather than an unlucky shell.
But turret flash fires are main thing I'd be worried about. With tech and experience they get less likely, but I think any time a turret is penetrated there's still a risk. Weaker turrets = more risk. More turrets = more risk. The fewer turrets a ship has, the more resistant it is to damage it is in general. But you also have to balance that against firepower, and the risk of a turret getting jammed or knocked out (because then you might suddenly lose a lot of your firepower even without taking critical damage). So usually, if you're going for fewer turrets, it's even more important to protect them from getting knocked out.
Otherwise, as a rule of thumb, I usually add at least an extra inch of armor to turrets over what the main belt has.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Oct 6, 2016 1:36:26 GMT -6
I think ccip is correct. The number of rounds carried (more correctly the number of powder charges carried since shells themselves are pretty stable and hard to cook off) seems to have liitle or no effect on the chance of a catastrophic fire and explosion. There was a thread a little while back regarding the number of rounds that AI ships carried and Fredrick seemed surprised to find out how many rounds the players involved in the discussion typically put on their own designs. Significantly more than historical designs. He contemplated adjusting the chance of a magazine explosion to take into account so many rounds being carried but I never saw it listed in the change logs of the updates so it's a good bet he decided to leave it alone or not make a significant change.
|
|
|
Post by wolfpack on Oct 7, 2016 15:31:15 GMT -6
my first battle cruisers lex sara and ranger where monsters they however where weak in armor after many wars and twenty four years only ranger remained and she remains my most heavily armed bc outside of the monsters that are the saratoga(6x14in) and independence class (8x15in) and then the Yorktown's with their 6 15 in guns all barely surpassed the unstoppable hell fire the old range can put out ranger has sunk three enemy b's two bc and upwards of ten smaller ships Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by intolight on Oct 9, 2016 22:28:14 GMT -6
When I started my first playthrough as China, I was experimenting with various ship designs, and I built one or two of these on a whim and used them as colonial tonnage fillers. Then, during a 1920s war with Germany, one of these CA's managed to solo kill a German battleship displacing over 10k more, although said battleship was nearly half a decade older. Emboldened by this event, I laid down several more, neglecting my battlecruiser fleet in favor of building more overgunned cruisers. Then, I fought a war against Russia and learned why using overgunned cruisers against true, modern battlecruisers is a *very* bad idea. I went into the battle with five of these, plus a handful of destroyers. I left the battle with two heavily damaged cruisers, and even they would've been sunk if it hadn't been for the suicidal torp run of my few remaining destroyers that allowed them to break contact and escape. Even so, I've always had a soft spot for these ships in every subsequent playthrough. These ships are both cheap and capable of punching fairly high above their weight class, and they absolutely shred lighter cruisers. Their somewhat low speed can be problematic, but they can generally outrun or outgun anything they meet. A true battlecruiser will eat one of these for breakfast, however, so I tend to lolnope and turn tail if the enemy fleet has multiple battlecruisers and I don't a) outnumber the enemy BC's by at least two times with these CA's, b) have my own BC support, or c) have BB support very close by.
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 10, 2016 0:01:39 GMT -6
That's a very nice 'light' battlecruiser LOL. I was struck by the very aggressive bridge design. Those are some big wings!
I was going to say that you might want to relocate the 'V' turret to 'X' position, because I thought the arc of fire would be limited to the sides. But I tested it out and apparently V superfiring turrets do have a full arc across the stern.
If it were my design I would cut the conning tower armor down to match the belt and see if I could re-invest that somewhere else. I have often used CAs with 12x8" but I don't remember pushing the caliber to 12x10". That is a heavy punch for a cruiser, but I would not tackle a battlecruiser even two to one unless the BC was distracted by something else.
Nice design - glad they worked out well for you!
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Oct 10, 2016 7:28:35 GMT -6
Nice ship intolight and welcome to the forum. I have a question. Do you have issues with the 4" secondaries not having enough range to engage destroyers before they get into torpedo range based on the advanced torpedoes that should exist in your design's time frame?
|
|
|
Post by boogabooga on Oct 17, 2016 14:42:58 GMT -6
New to the game, but here's my favorite design so far (Gotta say this game is the best $35 I've spent in recent memory) This ship has saved my bacon so many times. I designed these ships because for some reason, the AI likes to run/ turn away from me and very rarely was I able to bring my full firepower when I was using rear turrets. Kurama and it's sister Hiei have taken down a combined 12 BC and BB between them, mostly UK and Russian. I was lucky enough to get 14 quality 1's fairly early in the game and was able to lay these down around '17 and after some upgrading they stayed relevant through '50. One Later game battle it was 4 v 2. Two UK BB and two BC. My two Kurama class managed to sink all 4 and (barely) limp home to port. The tonnage difference was something like 3:1 or better in that one. Luckily it was a coastal bombardment mission and they hadn't been all grouped at the beginning. I eventually enlarged to 44k tons and up-armed/armored the design after I got 17s and two of those were successful in wrecking about 75% of the Italian navy with just some DDs for screening and to finish off the cripples. It's laid out like the real-world Dunkerque-class: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkerque-class_battleship
|
|
keris
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by keris on Oct 18, 2016 10:18:40 GMT -6
New to the game, but here's my favorite design so far (Gotta say this game is the best $35 I've spent in recent memory) IMG This ship has saved my bacon so many times. I designed these ships because for some reason, the AI likes to run/ turn away from me and very rarely was I able to bring my full firepower when I was using rear turrets. Kurama and it's sister Hiei have taken down a combined 12 BC and BB between them, mostly UK and Russian. I was lucky enough to get 14 quality 1's fairly early in the game and was able to lay these down around '17 and after some upgrading they stayed relevant through '50. One Later game battle it was 4 v 2. Two UK BB and two BC. My two Kurama class managed to sink all 4 and (barely) limp home to port. The tonnage difference was something like 3:1 or better in that one. Luckily it was a coastal bombardment mission and they hadn't been all grouped at the beginning. I eventually enlarged to 44k tons and up-armed/armored the design after I got 17s and two of those were successful in wrecking about 75% of the Italian navy with just some DDs for screening and to finish off the cripples. It's laid out like the real-world Dunkerque-class: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkerque-class_battleshipYep, The Dunqerque and Nelson were the inspiration. Unfortunately, I didn't have quad turrets at the time or it would have been even closer to the dunq.
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Oct 18, 2016 11:53:10 GMT -6
I always end up making at least half a dozen to a dozen of these every game I play, whatever nation I pick. Their RoF overwhelms any CL they can encounter and even some CA's while their armour layout allows them to shrug off blows which would sink similar CL's. They're also very upgradable, with large speed increases through machinery or copying designs with new machinery. If any happen to survive to late game they make excellent colonian guboats or refitted torpedo barrage ships. Is this ship not a bit costly for Italy? I build CLs but with 23 kn, 1,5 inch deck, 3incher turrets and only 8 6incher guns for Germany and they cost about 23-25 million, I think?! I will check this in the next game ... .
|
|