|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 18, 2017 14:56:43 GMT -6
To Dorn:
Well, on the first ship, increase the freeboard. While this might be a coastal ship, there are still storms and waves. Higher freeboard will give her more seakeeping ability and hence make her stable for gunnery. Remove the torpedo tubes, they are a danger to the ship and not really worth the disruption in the armor belt and possible flooding. Remove the tertiary armament, its useless. Reduce the secondary guns to 4 ". At Jutland, for both sides, the hits due to 6" guns were .5% and 1%.
For the second ship, remove the tertiaries and again reduce the secondary's to 4". I would increase the turret top armor using the savings from the reducing the secondary's and eliminating the tertiaries.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Jul 18, 2017 15:01:17 GMT -6
I would like to ask your opinion if there is something that could be done better in her design. She was designed to fight with long range, more than 15,000 yards. First of all, 10,5in belt armour is not much for ship comissionned in 1916, I would not build ship so big without maximum 12in allowed for BC. Obviously, you will need to cut something - ship like this do not not need tertiaries, and, IMHO, 6in secondaries are not needed, 5in would be enough. SEC can also have less armour, 2in would be enough, as 3in will not give better protection against AP rounds. If that would not be enough to increase belt, id consider reducing speed. On the other hand, getting 1 vs 3 not much smaller ships (to carry 12x14 they would be in 35k ton range i think) is extremely unlucky. Now, if those were Gangut-pattern (4 turrets, none superfiring), it should be possible to achieve local superiority by staying in front or behind them... but still surviving it would be super lucky
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jul 18, 2017 18:57:29 GMT -6
To Dorn: Remove the torpedo tubes, they are a danger to the ship and not really worth the disruption in the armor belt and possible flooding. the fore and aft torp tubes, yes ditch those. but especially early game i often find the side torp tubes very valuable for finishing off motionless enemy ships up close - it's also a lot quicker than pounding the crap out of them with your guns (although that might be a good way to boost your ship's gunnery skills lol)
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Jul 19, 2017 1:31:47 GMT -6
To Dorn: Well, on the first ship, increase the freeboard. While this might be a coastal ship, there are still storms and waves. Higher freeboard will give her more seakeeping ability and hence make her stable for gunnery. Remove the torpedo tubes, they are a danger to the ship and not really worth the disruption in the armor belt and possible flooding. Remove the tertiary armament, its useless. Reduce the secondary guns to 4 ". At Jutland, for both sides, the hits due to 6" guns were .5% and 1%. Err, oldpop2000, that is a strange set of guidelines... If it would be tips for dreadnought era ship, I would agree with almost everything, but for 1900 ship? No, not at all. First, at this point massed secondaries are what actually hits enemy ships, not mains. Only around 1905-7 tech increase main RoF and accuracy enough to consider them important. Taking into account that in the first 5-8 years you will be fighting on very short ranges, 2-6000 yards and at that ranges 6-7 inchers (that are quite light so you can have a lot of them) can easily penetrate belt extended. 3-4in tertiaries in large numbers also rake enemy ships with HE shells demolishing superstructures in hope starting fire, that may force crew out of ship that still has enough buoyancy to survive. Torpedo tubes are also very important at that period - as JagdFlanker mentionned, if you can make your ships actually launch torpedoes, they are by far the easiest way to finish off enemy capital ships. In fact on capitain mode, where you can launch torps yourself, I would stuff early ships with as many tubes as possible. I do agree with your opinion about low freeboard, as it gives ships less reserve buoyancy and make them prone to sinking from penetrations a normal freeboard ship can shrug off.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 19, 2017 11:29:26 GMT -6
Thank all of you for your suggestions.
I will next time increase belt armor. You are right, there should be more armor even if primary ship is designed for long range combat. Yes, I could use 4" or 5" guns to save some weight.
Are terciaries really useless? They weight almost nothing and my idea was use them as defence against destroyers at night or bad visibility. I have found that hitting destroyer is not easy and even small caliber gun could slow him down so put a lot of guns could help.
4x2x14" guns versus 3x3x14" guns. My idea was saving some weight for armor and ability to fire 4 guns when disengaging.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Jul 19, 2017 11:48:31 GMT -6
Game I am currently playing, I just had 4 centerline prock in 1905, having skipped 3 and main battery wing. This the SMS Kaiser is this design.
|
|
|
Post by ddg on Jul 19, 2017 15:39:31 GMT -6
dorn, I went into a completed Austria-Hungary game of mine and recreated your BC (albeit with more advanced technology) to compare main battery layouts. See the album here. Your ABXY layout produces an armament weight of 6977 tons. Switching to an ABVY layout gives an armament weight of 6904 tons, a small savings but not to be ignored. If X turret is not present, V turret has the full 270-degree aft firing arc, so ABVY is identical to ABXY in combat. Compared to these eight-gun layouts, a nine-gun ABY in triples weighs 7109 tons all told—only 132 more tons for an extra gun over the ABXY. Finally, I checked an eight-gun ABY layout a superfiring twin in B position. This dropped the armament weight to just 6526 tons, a savings of 378 tons over the ABVY or 451 tons over the ABXY. I think this pretty clearly highlights the weight costs associated with more turrets versus more guns per turret. That's not to say there are no arguments in favor of the balanced four-turret arrangement. The reliability of the twins versus early triples isn't a trivial advantage, and it insulates the ship against disabled or destroyed turrets. Nevertheless, I personally tend to prefer packing my turrets as full of guns as I reasonably can and using the weight savings to improve protection. Hopefully this post gives you something to think about!
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 20, 2017 13:00:22 GMT -6
dorn , I went into a completed Austria-Hungary game of mine and recreated your BC (albeit with more advanced technology) to compare main battery layouts. See the album here. Your ABXY layout produces an armament weight of 6977 tons. Switching to an ABVY layout gives an armament weight of 6904 tons, a small savings but not to be ignored. If X turret is not present, V turret has the full 270-degree aft firing arc, so ABVY is identical to ABXY in combat. Compared to these eight-gun layouts, a nine-gun ABY in triples weighs 7109 tons all told—only 132 more tons for an extra gun over the ABXY. Finally, I checked an eight-gun ABY layout a superfiring twin in B position. This dropped the armament weight to just 6526 tons, a savings of 378 tons over the ABVY or 451 tons over the ABXY. I think this pretty clearly highlights the weight costs associated with more turrets versus more guns per turret. That's not to say there are no arguments in favor of the balanced four-turret arrangement. The reliability of the twins versus early triples isn't a trivial advantage, and it insulates the ship against disabled or destroyed turrets. Nevertheless, I personally tend to prefer packing my turrets as full of guns as I reasonably can and using the weight savings to improve protection. Hopefully this post gives you something to think about! Thanks for this analysis. How reliable are double vs. triple or quadruple guns? Is there any way how to find it in the game? Or I need just observe and evaluate? I find out that AI prefers more guns than better armor. Is it normal? Because this way these ships with high firepower but lower protection cannot really be better than more balanced ships with immunity zone. In my last several fights my ships were almost unscattered and able to sink enemy ships without numeric superiority.
|
|
|
Post by ddg on Jul 20, 2017 13:34:14 GMT -6
I'm not aware of an easy way to see the failure rate on turrets. Early triples and quads will fail noticeably more often; once fully upgraded, they should be equivalent to twins. I think you'll have to play around with them and develop your own intuitions.
Beyond that we're getting into philosophical territory. I think players can design better ships than the AI, because we have the benefit of a century of hindsight (even if only a few decades of that is really relevant) and the AI tends toward period-appropriate designs. Personally, I tend toward something similar to the USN's "Standard Battleship" design philosophy, but you'll find a pretty wide variety of opinions here.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jul 20, 2017 14:03:03 GMT -6
I agree with ddg . There is a second "improved" tech for triple and quad turrets that eliminates the reliability and rate-of-fire penalty compared to double turrets but I have no idea what the numbers are for how more often they jam until you research them. If you have a ship with triple or quad turrets already commissioned and you research the improved version, to remove the penalties you have to perform a refit for those ships (any kind of refit, even a blank one where you don't actually change anything). When the ship gets out of the yards, the penalties are gone. I'm used to seeing the AI go for guns over armor consistently so I consider that "normal" for the AI. Some of that is the AI ship templates and some of it is the design priority for the nation itself. Each nation in the BNat file has a design priority assigned, 0 = Balanced, 1 = Speed, 2 = Guns, 3 = Protection. For example, England has a priority of 2 and they always seem to immediately use the heaviest guns available even if their ship maximum displacement isn't large enough to really build a balanced design based on that weapon so the protection usually suffers.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 20, 2017 14:54:58 GMT -6
I take your suggestion and prepare another design, this time battleship design. Built with immunite zone between 12,000 - 23,000 yards against their own guns and except deck to 25,000 yards. Immunity zone against 17" guns is 17,000 - 21,000, up to 22,000 except deck.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 20, 2017 15:03:54 GMT -6
that complement, the General Belgrano had 1100 crewmen and was a light cruiser
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jul 21, 2017 10:06:05 GMT -6
that complement, the General Belgrano had 1100 crewmen and was a light cruiser The tiny complement is probably due to the paucity of guns in this design. I jam my capital ships with secondary and tertiary guns and as a result most of my battleships have complements that hover around 1000. What is shocking is what happens to the complement when you strip the ship of guns. Below is an image of one of my dreadnoughts built in 1923 with strong secondary and tertiary batteries. Note the complement. (The excess weight is because this image of a 1923 ship was snapped in 1933.) The image below shows the same ship with all of its armament removed. Now I could be mistaken, but I suspect that this ship would have a hard time operating with a complement of just 64 men. Something seems just a smidge off here.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 21, 2017 10:59:22 GMT -6
FYI:
When I eliminate secondary and tertiary guns, my complement goes from 1073-1395, to 1085-1411. This is in Springsharp software.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jul 21, 2017 11:08:08 GMT -6
FYI: When I eliminate secondary and tertiary guns, my complement goes from 1073-1395, to 1085-1411. This is in Springsharp software. It goes up?
|
|