|
Post by brucesim2003 on Mar 14, 2017 17:52:24 GMT -6
I find that by the time you get advanced director you don't need more than an 8-9 gun broadside. And the 17" are a waste of weight imo. More than 15" guns is overkill.
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on Mar 14, 2017 20:51:52 GMT -6
I find that by the time you get advanced director you don't need more than an 8-9 gun broadside. And the 17" are a waste of weight imo. More than 15" guns is overkill. Not needing a big broadside with good directors might well be a good piece of advice. However, I have been seeing some indications in the detailed logs where 15" are not getting penetrations that I think 16" or larger would be getting. So 17" might be overkill, but I am not sure I would want to drop all the way down to 15" for my end-game period large ships.
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Mar 14, 2017 23:01:03 GMT -6
You could be right about the 15" guns. I tend to try and fight at fairly long range, and the AI tends to put 2" armour on the decks and turret tops, so the 15" goes right through it. Short range may yield a different result, however.
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on Mar 15, 2017 9:23:17 GMT -6
You could be right about the 15" guns. I tend to try and fight at fairly long range, and the AI tends to put 2" armour on the decks and turret tops, so the 15" goes right through it. Short range may yield a different result, however. I was fighting ships that were using 3-4" of deck armor. Not sure about turret tops since it doesn't display that. And I think a number of the failed penetrations I saw where 15" failing to penetrate that amount of deck in the 18000-22000 yard range. I was also seeing 16" failing to do so at times as well. I also think it might model the angle at which you are hitting their armor and thus the belt might have a greater effective thickness. So the extra 1.5-2" of belt penetration a 16" (+1) gets over a 15" (+1) is probably a factor if the target has belt armor in the 12.5" to 13.5" range. It's just enough to stop 15" rounds every so often, but generally cannot stop the 16" rounds. And, of course, the 17" are going to go through anyways most of the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 12:40:12 GMT -6
long range accuracy of 17" and 18" is much better. i get more hits outta 12x17" than 16x16" despite the latter gets more tubes. they also have better stopping power, sometimes 1 hit induces flooding causing extra damage and make the AI slow down.
anywayz end game ships are all glass cannons. the more "cannon" the better long as there's some glass, lol. 17" prolly is the best compromise since 18" doesn't get that much range bonus and weighs a bit too much within game constraints.
but ofc.. just me 2c!
|
|
|
Post by director on Mar 17, 2017 11:38:41 GMT -6
I've had good luck with massive batteries of 14" and 15" - tried one test game where as a house rule I used nothing bigger than a 14". My post-1925 battlewagons carried 18 of them in six triple turrets... whatever they may have lacked in penetration they made up for in sheer weight of shells-on-target. That said, my favorite design is still built around 12 - 15" or 16".
|
|
|
Post by wolfpack on Mar 18, 2017 16:30:55 GMT -6
anyone use skwabies mods ?,i have been able to float ships with enough armor to brawl in 25 but they usually don't get into range because of the engines being so blastedly heavy
|
|
|
Post by beastro on Mar 18, 2017 17:40:24 GMT -6
Historically the 16in was where the happy medium was found.
|
|
|
Post by skyblazer on Mar 19, 2017 3:24:33 GMT -6
Because who doesn't love a super heavy CA PS this was a triple turret 10" gun CA with decent amounts of leftover displacement that I upgunned to dual 13" guns. I tried to do this with a quad gun setup however I get nothing but errors from that design when I try to do a turret rebuild
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Mar 19, 2017 5:19:13 GMT -6
If it's use is as a cruiser (as it's armour suggests it is) triple 10" would be better, imo. Either way, that's a lot of tonnage to spend on a cruiser, but it would crush any raider it comes across.
The 15" armour on the turret is extreme for a cruiser. Almost as if you are taking the courageous class and turning it on it's head.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Mar 19, 2017 6:51:17 GMT -6
Armored cruiser? This is a battlecruiser, plain and simple. I think the game should have division on 18-20k tonns, no matter main gun calibre.
|
|
|
Post by urikae1 on Mar 19, 2017 10:33:18 GMT -6
I had a few spare thoughts floating around about the feasibility of putting BE on my light cruisers, couple with my desire to have a DD flotilla leader, and then let things get kinda out of hand. This design sunk a more heavily armed Italian CL, granted it was outweighed by almost 2k tons by my ship, with nothing but gunfire. It then proceeded to ram and sink a DD, and crush another with a few well placed 6 inch shots. The unfortunate Italian CL.
|
|
|
Post by beastro on Mar 19, 2017 16:47:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Mar 19, 2017 17:31:45 GMT -6
Great Scott! Those must have cost a pretty penny indeed!
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Mar 19, 2017 17:48:48 GMT -6
I'd argue that just building a battlecruiser would've been better. Then again, the US usually does end up with a good sum of money in the later years and can probably afford some super-heavy cruisers.
|
|