Post your best ship designs here

[zardoz]

Hello Intolight,

I tried a similar thing with a CA and made also bad experiences against modern BCs. I lost the ships very quickly. In my opinion, they are not worth the money because for recon they are much to expensive, for battle they are not suited and it is questionable whether it is worth building them for service in the colonies.

[Airy W]

Oct 18, 2016 11:53:10 GMT -6 zardoz said:

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 ... .

Seems like the kind of ship you are talking about is downright overpowered, especially early.

Oct 18, 2016 12:00:23 GMT -6 zardoz said:

Hello Intolight,



I tried a similar thing with a CA and made also bad experiences against modern BCs. I lost the ships very quickly. In my opinion, they are not worth the money because for recon they are much to expensive, for battle they are not suited and it is questionable whether it is worth building them for service in the colonies.

I dont really think that CAs should be judged by standing up to BCs, their job is to catch other CAs or have enough armor to scare away CLs. Having a CA or two in your roster really changes the game when it comes to convoy raids whether attacking or defending.

[director]

I judge BCs by their usefulness as capital ships, leading a scouting element of the battle fleet or operating alone against cruisers or other BCs. My CLs and CAs are only expected to stand up to equivalent enemy ships - a cruiser that can't run from a BC is dead, period, and I've never seen a CL or CA that could fight BCs with any hope of victory in any but the most unusual of circumstances.

That said, I always intend for my CLs and CAs to be superior to enemy designs and I always expect them to win against enemy cruisers, even if outnumbered.

[Airy W]

I tried to hit the target of "best in class" at first but the problem with that is you are often left with a supership that ages poorly and becomes mediocre. So now I'm trying to force myself to have discipline and avoid making most of my cruisers too big. By accepting that some enemy ships will just be plain better then some of my cruisers it's possible to afford a few slow cruisers that can really win a fight or fast cruisers that can really catch the enemy.

I have two different possible missions for BCs, depending on why I build them. I try to have a diversity of cruisers so sometimes my ACs get so might that I make a true BC, middling armor but fast and big guns. But sometimes random technology means that it's easier to make my battleships fast rather then fighty so they tun into BCs for that reason.

[archelaos]

Well, AI builds some insane CAs, so I find it hard to justify building my own designs... Unfortunately, as heavy cruisers are some of my favorite ships

As example, SMS Hertha, built by Germany in my recent game (I was Italy). I found it so amusing I even made side pic of her

  

Besides, what do you think about "light" BCs, aka "cruiser killers"
I built one, a fast and well armored cousin of Deutschlands


I only managed to have it in one meaningful engagement though, where she devastated french modern CA (4x3 10in, 14x 5in secondaries) without taking much damage, so I can't say to have her tested in battle.

[director]

The problem with building any ship for a specialized purpose (other than ASW or raiding) is that it will often be assigned missions it was not optimized for. A 'light' BC will fiendishly be sent into battle against the biggest enemy BC, or against six of them LOL. So I prefer to build general-purpose ships, and to run up the tonnage to get good performance.

I've had a 12x6" light cruiser take out three smaller opponent CLs, and if the visibility is bad one of those can shred a CA. I've found that superior light cruisers are the key to winning most of the missions, from convoy raiding to shore bombardment to cruiser actions.

[oldpop2000]

Nov 8, 2016 19:34:43 GMT -6 director said:

The problem with building any ship for a specialized purpose (other than ASW or raiding) is that it will often be assigned missions it was not optimized for. A 'light' BC will fiendishly be sent into battle against the biggest enemy BC, or against six of them LOL. So I prefer to build general-purpose ships, and to run up the tonnage to get good performance.

I've had a 12x6" light cruiser take out three smaller opponent CLs, and if the visibility is bad one of those can shred a CA. I've found that superior light cruisers are the key to winning most of the missions, from convoy raiding to shore bombardment to cruiser actions.

I am missing the logic in the idea of building heavy cruisers. Heavy cruisers were an outgrowth of the Washington Naval Treaty. No battleships for ten years, scrap old ones and a limitation of 10,000 tons and eight inch guns. So, in a virtual history, would the nations have built those cruisers, without the limitations? Well, of course not. They would have built more faster, heavier and better armed battleships, maybe some battlecruisers to perform trade warfare and scouting along with light cruisers and if history is correct, carriers. So, in the game, if you don't have a treaty limitation, why built those heavy cruisers, what do you gain? IMHO, absolutely nothing except cannon fodder for the BC's and BA's. It's that simple. Call me an old guy, but that is what I perceive.

Now having said that, would the light scout cruisers have evolved? If you examine the 1920's SpringStyles Book 1, you will see a "scout cruiser" with 7 x 8 inch guns. In fact there are many battle scouts, etc. generated by the scout cruiser study of 1915. But now, do we accept this as proof? I wouldn't, not a bit. What you design in a study is a far cry from what might be built.

[archelaos]

Nov 8, 2016 19:34:43 GMT -6 director said:

The problem with building any ship for a specialized purpose (other than ASW or raiding) is that it will often be assigned missions it was not optimized for. A 'light' BC will fiendishly be sent into battle against the biggest enemy BC, or against six of them LOL. So I prefer to build general-purpose ships, and to run up the tonnage to get good performance.

I've had a 12x6" light cruiser take out three smaller opponent CLs, and if the visibility is bad one of those can shred a CA. I've found that superior light cruisers are the key to winning most of the missions, from convoy raiding to shore bombardment to cruiser actions.

Multi gun CLs are great, but it is very late tech and they rarely finish building before end date. Obviously, you can play on, but still, it is late game toy
When built, RM San Giorgio was the fastest large ship in the world, so she could ran from what she can't kill, and I used it in areas where enemy had no capital ships. In fact in my war with France, she was chasing french CAs around Africa, Caraibbean and visiting NEurope

Oldpop - I also do not see the point in building CAs in game, and I regret it.

But I'm not sure they would not appear in no-treaty world. What you describe - "scout cruiser" with 7x8in is essentially treaty-CA... And when one power would build such ships, others would follow, as they have one huge advantage of such ship compared to a BC - you can have them in two places at once. And compared to BCs planned at the end of WWI, I'd say you can have three. This means you have a ship in the sea all the time, patrolling or blockading, compared to occasional sallies by single BC.

I'd say some navies (Mediterranean countries, Germany) would have no place for CAs as they could concentrate on sallying, so BCs/Fast BBs would be the way to go. But can't really see Japan, UK, USA covering vastness on world oceans with limited (through excessive cost) capital ships.

The main difference, I'd say, heavy group will be composed of all large cruisers, no matter what main guns they had - in fact, putting Tromp or Capitani Romani in the same class as Towns or Clevelands seem completely wrong to me.

It is extremely interesting how, without large hulls available, carriers would evolve...

[Airy W]

Nov 8, 2016 19:34:43 GMT -6 director said:

The problem with building any ship for a specialized purpose (other than ASW or raiding) is that it will often be assigned missions it was not optimized for.

Not every engagement should be decisive. If I can substitute a 2600 ton cruiser for a 5500 cruiser and come out alive, that frees up a lot of money to beef up my cruiser-hunter or my battleships.

Nov 8, 2016 21:07:35 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

I am missing the logic in the idea of building heavy cruisers. Heavy cruisers were an outgrowth of the Washington Naval Treaty.

The term heavy cruiser was born of the Naval Treaty but they built plenty of armored cruisers with a lot of tonnage before then.

The logic of an armored cruiser is that it's a terror for a light cruiser and it stops enemy armored cruisers.

Nov 9, 2016 7:23:05 GMT -6 archelaos said:

And when one power would build such ships, others would follow, as they have one huge advantage of such ship compared to a BC - you can have them in two places at once. And compared to BCs planned at the end of WWI, I'd say you can have three. This means you have a ship in the sea all the time, patrolling or blockading, compared to occasional sallies by single BC.

I agree. You can make life extremely dangerous for enemy raiders by having some ACs dedicated to hunting them.

[oldpop2000]

We need to understand that the "battle scout" idea was originated in the Naval Expansion Act of 1916 under Wilson. These were comparable in size and hitting power to the latest British battlecruisers. Why? Because the US leaders felt that after the war, the winners would become rivals to the US and we needed parity with the greatest foreign power.... Great Britain. Keep in mind that the Washington Naval Treaty of 6 February 1922 was designed to prevent the ruinous building of next generation battleships, nothing else. In that, it succeed.

Each nation has their own geostrategic problems of location on the earth. For the US, the problem was and still is, distances in the Pacific. From San Francisco to Pearl Harbor is over 2091 miles. from Pearl Harbor to Japan is another 3240 miles. To the Philippines through Guam is another 3300 plus 1501. To Australia, from Pearl Harbor its about 4420 miles to Sydney Harbor. These distances and the possible military expedition via War Plan Orange, required large warships with great endurance and a fleet train. So, this is what prompted along with the possibility that Great Britain might be our next adversary, the design of battle scouts. The British had essentially the same problem with the Med and Singapore. These requirements were the reason for the building of the "heavy cruiser". The London Navy Treaty is the driving force behind the two different classes of cruisers. In it, are the specifications for surface vessels of the light category, that do not exceed 10000 tons and which do not carry guns over 8 in. The term itself is meaningless other than to differentiate between the lighter surface vessel and heavier version. The treaty does not provide any real naming function.

In RTW, except for the US and Great Britain, heavy cruisers are not really needed. I would and do, build armored cruisers, light cruisers and battleships for countries like Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary. I just don't see the justification for the expenditure of funds. However, in the RTW-2, this might change with the addition of carrier warfare and the need for extensive AA protection. In this era, the heavy cruiser with its bigger platform for medium and small rapid fire weapons would be necessary.

Just my opinion.

[Airy W]

I feel like you are mixing together a semantic distinction and a gameplay argument. The "Heavy Cruiser" Acheloas showed would not meet the requirements of a "Heavy Cruiser". According to the treaty it would be a capital ship both because it's 15,000 tons exceeds 10,000 tons quite handily and because it's 10 inch guns exceed the 8 inch maximum. When he was talking about "Heavy Cruisers" I think he was referring to an armored cruiser of large displacement.

I think that armored cruisers of large displacement are extremely effectively in limited numbers. Used for offensive raiding, their only counter would be an exorbitantly expensive battlecruiser. And before battlecruisers become viable, no deterrent to them exists except for other large displacement armored cruisers. Used defensively they can run down and destroy enemy raiders.

Were it not for the Washington Naval Treaty, I think such cruisers would have been logical to build. If the enemy didn't counter them with BCs, they would be dangerous. If the enemy did counter them with BCs, they would be a very efficient fleet-in-being. It was only with the development of aircraft carriers that they became obsolete.

[director]

I generally use 'armored cruiser' for the first cruisers with belt armor and guns of 7" or larger, and heavy cruiser for the 'all-big-gun' version of the same (more than 3 turrets with guns larger than 7" and turbine propulsion). That's just my private shorthand. Like oldpop I rarely build CAs unless I have some spare money and/or need a light-cruiser killer. Mostly I use them as flagships for colonial deployments; it's an expensive solution, but I like it.

johnw, I don't dispute that you can save money on a smaller, cheaper cruiser. I'm not sure that smaller, cheaper cruiser can evade the big, heavily armed light cruiser and I'm pretty sure it cannot win a fight if it is forced to it. Since we can't control which ships get assigned to missions, I build big and mean from the start - 6500 tons, 23 knots and 8x6" on day one - and push the stats upward from there. I see every battle as a chance at VPs, prestige and cash, and any battle I don't win is an opportunity lost. I'm not saying you should use my concepts - develop your own, and make sure that what you build supports the kind of war you intend to fight.

[Airy W]

If the small cruiser is bristling with guns and has destroyer escorts it's not in much danger. And if it just clips the enemy that can force the enemy into a neutral harbor which is massive.  That doesn't net you points but it does help you blockade.

I view every battle as not just an opportunity but also as a threat. If it's my 5000 ton CL against their 5000 ton CL and I engage I am risking handing the enemy a big pile of points. If I have the money to afford sending my 8000 ton CA against their CL I not only dont think I will lose my ship, I think I'm more likely to sink theirs. It's like playing poker, the good players know that you have to fold right after the ante if you want the chips to win later.

[axe99]

Nov 8, 2016 21:07:35 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

I am missing the logic in the idea of building heavy cruisers. Heavy cruisers were an outgrowth of the Washington Naval Treaty. No battleships for ten years, scrap old ones and a limitation of 10,000 tons and eight inch guns. So, in a virtual history, would the nations have built those cruisers, without the limitations? Well, of course not. They would have built more faster, heavier and better armed battleships, maybe some battlecruisers to perform trade warfare and scouting along with light cruisers and if history is correct, carriers. So, in the game, if you don't have a treaty limitation, why built those heavy cruisers, what do you gain? IMHO, absolutely nothing except cannon fodder for the BC's and BA's. It's that simple. Call me an old guy, but that is what I perceive.

Now having said that, would the light scout cruisers have evolved? If you examine the 1920's SpringStyles Book 1, you will see a "scout cruiser" with 7 x 8 inch guns. In fact there are many battle scouts, etc. generated by the scout cruiser study of 1915. But now, do we accept this as proof? I wouldn't, not a bit. What you design in a study is a far cry from what might be built.

While I'm a bit crook to make a sensible case one way or the other for IRL CAs, in-game I've had a fair bit of success with fast 10-12K ton ships with a focus on speed and firepower (but still a decent amount of armour).  Great for trade warfare/trade defence, and I tend to wack a bunch of 4-5 inch secondaries on them which make them handy as screens and support craft in a fleet battle as well (as the battle line draws the heavy fire, so the CAs can concentrate on whatever they like - off the top of my head, I can't recall exactly what that is, but I haven't been unhappy to have them in larger battles).

Here's one in a recent game I played - it's a 1921 design, so should out-pace any BCs that are about, but be strong enough to stand up to any cruisers it bumps into.  I'd usually go for more 8" guns, but I had -1 quality 8" and 0 quality 9" in this game, so 9" main armament it was.

[krawa]

Very intersting design Axe. Out of curiosity, have you tried sacrificing 1-2kn in order to give the ship long range? In my experience long ranged ships are more efficient as raiders (less interceptions, less scuttling or internment) so that I tend to give all my true allround cruiser long range