|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 27, 2016 18:57:30 GMT -6
That design would also be pretty decent in the lategame if you have secondary director. Those 11 inch guns will suddenly be very accurate and ammo gets very good. Yah, but I was playing on 20% research, and ended in 1925 cause I couldn't get over how low it was. Never even got past central firing |
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Dec 28, 2016 9:34:45 GMT -6
My raider is now the smallest cruiser possible:   In effect they were not often used as raider but when used in their designated role they performed quite well. A disadvantage is that the speed can not really be increased significantly and so, later the ships must be placed carefully to avoid quicker enemies. One unlucky ship was caught by an US BC and shot to pieces. Another one could play hide and seek with an UK CA in the shore region of Argentina till dawn and escape. I prefer these ships instead of AMC since they cost about 7 Mio and do not vanish after a war. With their good speed at the beginning they can also act as a recon cruiser.- |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 28, 2016 11:32:07 GMT -6
My raider is now the smallest cruiser possible: In effect they were not often used as raider but when used in their designated role they performed quite well. A disadvantage is that the speed can not really be increased significantly and so, later the ships must be placed carefully to avoid quicker enemies. One unlucky ship was caught by an US BC and shot to pieces. Another one could play hide and seek with an UK CA in the shore region of Argentina till dawn and escape. I prefer these ships instead of AMC since they cost about 7 Mio and do not vanish after a war. With their good speed at the beginning they can also act as a recon cruiser.- Love that ship picture. I built the Alliance and Trumbull ships for much the same reasons. When I commissioned Alliance she was at least 2 to 3 knots faster than any other non-destroyer in the game. But by the end of the war with Russia, everyone but the UK had Alliance killers either commissioned or under construction. The AI doesn't wait long to counter a design. I actually like that. I could have kept the ships longer but I was nowhere near the tension level for another war and every nation had a half dozen or more light cruisers plus battlecruisers that could match or exceed their speed. I decided to go ahead and scrap them and free up their maintenance funds for new construction. I probably won't repeat that design for the rest of this game. I have a number of medium and minelaying subs now. |
|
|
|
Post by skyblazer on Dec 28, 2016 17:48:18 GMT -6
Ive been using 2100ton light cruisers a lot in most of my games. They're normally 1in belt, 6in con, 1in turret, long range, 22 to 27 depending on yr and armed with 7 5in guns arranged with 2 forward, 2 sets of wing and 1 aft.
They cost buggar all to build but have very limited rebuild life as the machinery weight is already very light and rebuilds don't give back enough to help them gain a knot of speed. They also lose every auto resolve encounters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 28, 2016 18:31:20 GMT -6
I find the AI likes 2100 ton cruisers so I build 4500 ton cruisers to chase them down.  |
|
|
|
Post by beastro on Dec 31, 2016 13:20:02 GMT -6
How do you make a ship like this with all guns forward? Is it a part of the ship designer that allowed you to modify the superstructure and move it back or is it a program or new assets people made?? I want to make 3 all forward turrets on my latest ships, but by default I am unable to do so (B and C turrets occupy the same space). |
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Dec 31, 2016 16:31:52 GMT -6
How do you make a ship like this with all guns forward? Is it a part of the ship designer that allowed you to modify the superstructure and move it back or is it a program or new assets people made?? I want to make 3 all forward turrets on my latest ships, but by default I am unable to do so (B and C turrets occupy the same space). Use an L or a Q turret instead of a C or a B? |
|
|
|
Post by beastro on Dec 31, 2016 17:18:33 GMT -6
Use an L or a Q turret instead of a C or a B? I want all forward for both the weight saving as well as the aesthetics. |
|
|
|
Post by ddg on Dec 31, 2016 19:31:34 GMT -6
ABL is the Nelson layout and gets the weight savings. The example you quoted looks like ALQ to me. Experiment with changing out some turrets on an ABL ship to see if they get the weight savings as well. ABQ might, I can't recall. AB (Dunkerque) should.
|
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 31, 2016 23:49:02 GMT -6
My contribution to the tiny Cruiser group. I thought to myself, can I put 3" guns on a CL, turns out I was right, here is my tiny raider: 2100tons 25knts 14*3", 4*2" 1" belt, 1" turrets All in 1902. I don't expect these to work very well, building 2 for a lark as AH  |
|
|
|
Post by skyblazer on Jan 1, 2017 0:50:56 GMT -6
My contribution to the tiny Cruiser group. I thought to myself, can I put 3" guns on a CL, turns out I was right, here is my tiny raider: 2100tons 25knts 14*3", 4*2" 1" belt, 1" turrets All in 1902. I don't expect these to work very well, building 2 for a lark as AH View AttachmentI just started a game as uk today and in 1900 they can make a long range, 25knot, 7 5in gun light cruiser. I wasn't expecting 25knots more like 22 which i get with most nations. Basically they're good to mass produce as raider since its more about numbers then ship size etc |
|
|
|
Post by skyblazer on Jan 1, 2017 2:31:58 GMT -6
![]() So I finally took a moment to work out how to selectively print screen a selected screen(Been a few years since I last did that lol) So here is what my typical early game light 2100ton CL's look like for all nations minus changes in speed. In this game I just entered a 1901 war with Germany with me as the UK and the mission was a convoy defense. 2 of these cruisers were in the mission and zipped about dealing with the enemy DD escort and only CL which was a 3400ton, 6in armed, 23knot design. They chased that CL off and destroyed 2 DD's while the enemy 2 Pre-Dread's were engaged with my 2 Pre-dreads. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 1, 2017 12:46:08 GMT -6
I used ALQ for 'Belisarius' because I didn't have superfiring tech yet. ABL is the 'Nelson' look. You can get the 'N'-class look with ABQ or ABR. That's some fancy wings on that CL, there.  |
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jan 1, 2017 15:59:33 GMT -6
I do believe ABL and ABQ save on weight compared to ABY (That's the correct term, right?), but neither ABL nor ABQ saves weight over the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by beastro on Jan 1, 2017 21:01:36 GMT -6
I used ALQ for 'Belisarius' because I didn't have superfiring tech yet. ABL is the 'Nelson' look. You can get the 'N'-class look with ABQ or ABR. What I meant is how did you pull the superstructure back that far? I noticed after posting that that there's the superstructure buttons down next to the funnel ones, but for the life of me I can't figure out how to use them at all if they are what you used to pull that off. This is one of the few instances where a more detailed guide would help as I can't infer wtf to do at all. :/ |
|
