|
Post by TheD3rp on Jul 26, 2015 17:19:38 GMT -6
This is the Empress of India, commissioned in 1908 during my first war with Germany. She didn't actually see any combat during the war and her sister wasn't commissioned until 1910 due to financial difficulties, so I have no idea how the design performs.
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Jul 26, 2015 17:50:51 GMT -6
She will have problems fending off DD attacks I would think. Guns over 6" (?) have accuracy penalties vs DD's. Drop the 8" to 6" and up the armour and she would be quite effective for 1908.
|
|
|
Post by galagagalaxian on Jul 27, 2015 0:13:35 GMT -6
That is a very British Dreadnought layout, I approve.
|
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by krawa on Jul 27, 2015 11:35:49 GMT -6
Some new designs: Legacy battlecruiser? Why not? Kaiserin Augusta was built at 1899 as her 3 sisters and was at first line for 25 years, fighting and winning countless battles. Light cruisers? Pair of armoured cruisers? Single predreadnought? She may deal with all them in same time before her ammo is out (200 shells per gun). And enemies may only pray for golden shell or torpedo. She was built by the price of battleship, but that worth all money. Ideal legacy raider? Here it is! three Forban-class cruisers had decent speed for 1900, and their guns may deal even with CA, especially after invention of good AP shells and firing control. Forban's largest prey was Japanese armoured cruiser 12000 ton large with 9 inch guns. Good addition to her usual merchant diet! You want to build average dreadnought in 1904, but still only 3 centerline turrets invented? Add more boosters powerful secondaries! Charles Martell may fight with two predreads at once and overgun both of them! And only imagine, what 10-inch shell may do with destroyer stupid enough to attack this French madness fortress! Gornik,
no offense but your Kaiserin Augusta design for a legacy CA shouldn't be legal. I mean wing turrets of >7 inches have to be researched first but fore/aft side by side turrests are a valid design option? What's the difference that fore/aft side by side turrets are allowed and wing turrets are not?
Beside that no sane designer would place two 10" turrets in a side by side Arrangement on the forecastle as the ship will most likely be too narrow. As far as I know this arrangement was only used for shielded guns on small cruisers, but not for turrets, let alone 10" ones. Does anyone know an example of a ship with a side by side placement of the turrents on bow or stern?
Regards, Krawa
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jul 27, 2015 12:00:41 GMT -6
Beside that no sane designer would place two 10" turrets in a side by side Arrangement on the forecastle as the ship will most likely be too narrow. As far as I know this arrangement was only used for shielded guns on small cruisers, but not for turrets, let alone 10" ones. Does anyone know an example of a ship with a side by side placement of the turrents on bow or stern?
Regards, Krawa
Siegfried-class coast defense ship had 9 in guns in these positions. That's why it's allowed in the game. Though I admit it's arguable if it should really be workable or if there should be some kind of penalty for that arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by galagagalaxian on Jul 27, 2015 12:28:16 GMT -6
Maybe a rate of fire penalty to turrets over X" in that configuration?
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Jul 27, 2015 13:04:48 GMT -6
Beside that no sane designer would place two 10" turrets in a side by side Arrangement on the forecastle as the ship will most likely be too narrow. As far as I know this arrangement was only used for shielded guns on small cruisers, but not for turrets, let alone 10" ones. Does anyone know an example of a ship with a side by side placement of the turrents on bow or stern?
Regards, Krawa
Siegfried-class coast defense ship had 9 in guns in these positions. That's why it's allowed in the game. Though I admit it's arguable if it should really be workable or if there should be some kind of penalty for that arrangement. As did the Russian Sinope and Ekaterina II class in the Black Sea Fleet (3 x 12" twin barbettes, two forward, one aft). The aim was to optimize forward firepower for line-abreast formations. The Royal Navy toyed with this arrangement in at least one conceptual design as well, for example capital ship Design "D" from 1905, 12 x 12" in six twin-turrets on 19,000 tons, with the fore and aft turret pairs side-by-side. (see Parkes, page 473). On another note, I must admit that questioning the sanity of another Player for his fictional RTW ship designs adds remarkably little to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Jul 27, 2015 13:05:21 GMT -6
Beside that no sane designer would place two 10" turrets in a side by side Arrangement on the forecastle as the ship will most likely be too narrow. As far as I know this arrangement was only used for shielded guns on small cruisers, but not for turrets, let alone 10" ones. Does anyone know an example of a ship with a side by side placement of the turrents on bow or stern?
Regards, Krawa
Siegfried-class coast defense ship had 9 in guns in these positions. That's why it's allowed in the game. Though I admit it's arguable if it should really be workable or if there should be some kind of penalty for that arrangement. My first design in such configuration had 9 in guns in this positions I think there may be penalty or error for "more than 4 guns above 7 in" for designs before "heavy secondaries" will be invented. Augusta is gamey of course, but she became notable part of my studying "natural laws" of RTW world
|
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by krawa on Jul 28, 2015 2:46:15 GMT -6
Siegfried-class coast defense ship had 9 in guns in these positions. That's why it's allowed in the game. Though I admit it's arguable if it should really be workable or if there should be some kind of penalty for that arrangement. As did the Russian Sinope and Ekaterina II class in the Black Sea Fleet (3 x 12" twin barbettes, two forward, one aft). The aim was to optimize forward firepower for line-abreast formations. The Royal Navy toyed with this arrangement in at least one conceptual design as well, for example capital ship Design "D" from 1905, 12 x 12" in six twin-turrets on 19,000 tons, with the fore and aft turret pairs side-by-side. (see Parkes, page 473). On another note, I must admit that questioning the sanity of another Player for his fictional RTW ship designs adds remarkably little to the discussion. Sorry but I didn't mean to question Gornik's sanity, what I meant is no sane ship builder back then would have placed the turrets in that way on a 22kn cruiser. Please excuse my a little bit too strong words here, I was just suprised such an odd design is valid while otherwise much care is taken to only allow reasonable ship designs.
The examples you brought up are slow coastal defence / bombardment ships that can live with the downsides of that Arrangement, namely increased horsepower required to reach a given speed (as the hull Needs to be widened) and probably limited usefulness in bad weather (due to reduced stability as the turrets are far away from the Center of buoyancy).
To reflect this I think ships with this Arrangement should require more power to reach a certain design speed for a given displacement and should suffer increased speed loss and ROF Penalty in severe weather.
Regards, Krawa
|
|
tc27
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by tc27 on Jul 28, 2015 7:49:20 GMT -6
She will have problems fending off DD attacks I would think. Guns over 6" (?) have accuracy penalties vs DD's. Drop the 8" to 6" and up the armour and she would be quite effective for 1908. What is the best calibre for casemate guns to defend against destroyers? As many 4" or 5" guns as you can fit?
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jul 28, 2015 7:59:39 GMT -6
Good suggestions Krawa, but the issue is complicated. The Russian cruisers Rossia and Gromoboi had 8 in guns in similar arrangement and were meant as (for their time) high speed ships. I agree the design of the ship in question is creative, and arguably doesn't give the impression of a totally historical design, but coming up with a solution takes some thought.
|
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by krawa on Jul 28, 2015 9:04:12 GMT -6
Good suggestions Krawa, but the issue is complicated. The Russian cruisers Rossia and Gromoboi had 8 in guns in similar arrangement and were meant as (for their time) high speed ships. I agree the design of the ship in question is creative, and arguably doesn't give the impression of a totally historical design, but coming up with a solution takes some thought. Rossia and Gromoboi used Casemates and/or shielded gun Mounts for their 8" guns, not fully enclosed and armoured turrets resting on a barbette like the Siegfried class or the fictional CA design in question.
How about applying the penalty only for real turrets (armour >2")?
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Jul 28, 2015 18:05:55 GMT -6
She will have problems fending off DD attacks I would think. Guns over 6" (?) have accuracy penalties vs DD's. Drop the 8" to 6" and up the armour and she would be quite effective for 1908. What is the best calibre for casemate guns to defend against destroyers? As many 4" or 5" guns as you can fit? I tend to use 6" secondaries. Turreted....I'd rather have a permanent minor penalty but useable at all times than have them with no penalty but unusable in a heavy sea. My standard secondary battery is 12x 6". It works for me and I rarely if ever deviate from it. If I have a weight squeeze and the 5" gun is decent I'll use that instead, but I prefer the 6". 4" armour protects the battery from any guns that DD's would have. Cheers Bruce
|
|
|
Post by elouda on Jul 29, 2015 0:28:04 GMT -6
What is the best calibre for casemate guns to defend against destroyers? As many 4" or 5" guns as you can fit? I tend to use 6" secondaries. Turreted....I'd rather have a permanent minor penalty but useable at all times than have them with no penalty but unusable in a heavy sea. My standard secondary battery is 12x 6". It works for me and I rarely if ever deviate from it. If I have a weight squeeze and the 5" gun is decent I'll use that instead, but I prefer the 6". 4" armour protects the battery from any guns that DD's would have. Cheers Bruce I agree with the preference for turreted, though personally use 'shielded' mounts with 2in protection until the first of the techs that reduces the penalty for full turrets. With shielded mounts, 6in can be mounted with no penalty, and they seem fairly survivable most of the time. I have been using more casemates lately (especially on ACs), as from reading the manual it seems that they help with vertical protection somewhat (more armoured surface?). Also, although somewhat unorthodox, I was using a battery of 20-24 shielded 3in turrets as my secondary battery for most of my last game as Germany, mainly because the 3in starts at 1 quality, the 4in at 0, and the 5in at -1, and the 6in was too heavy for my initial designs (and I dislike jumping between calibers too much). It ended up working rather well.
|
|
|
Post by TheD3rp on Jul 29, 2015 14:38:28 GMT -6
It's 1921 and I have a bunch of new designs. Let's start of with an experiment in torpedoes: Various ship designs from throughout the years: I have no idea why it's deck is blue: The 1918 rebuild of the only surviving member of the Argonaut-class: And finally, my newest and heaviest ship, the Inflexible:
|
|