Question on CA's...

[gord96]

Hello all.

I have a question in regards to Armoured Cruisers. Once you enter the BB era, are they still viable? I ask as in my current games countries are starting to build BB's and when I get the 'computer' to design me a new CA it defaults me to a BC instead. Should a be building battle-cruisers instead of armoured cruisers? I of course like to keep lots of CL's for raiding, etc but wasn't sure where the CA stood in the BB era.

Thanks again!

[ccip]

The answer is yes, although that's qualified by the fact that the game plays rather loose with classifications. While it does affect the ship's behaviour, the features of the ship are still more important to look at than what it's classified as.

The other side of it is that historians tend to look at the pre-dreadnought era protected cruisers (classified as CLs in the game) as separate from true light cruisers (also classified as CLs), and armored cruisers as separate from the heavy cruiser (both classified as CA). And even within those classifications, there are actually some pretty different designs that co-existed. Technically, the later true CLs evolved from armored cruisers, and they definitely thrived on the battlefield.

CAs can be really useful in the late game, although I'd consider their role in the fleet carefully - but they're still viable in late game, and can be a great cruiser-killer and scouting ship that costs a fraction of what a BC does and is built a lot more quickly. And, just like historically, they can be a great way to get around naval arms treaties that restrict your ability to build large-displacement, big-gun ships.

[gord96]

Good info. Thanks ccip.

[ccip]

And by the way, the distinction between BB vs. BC vs. CA really blurs - the designation can change even if your basic design doesn't! It's basically by the tradeoff between speed vs. armament vs. armor that determines it.

Here's a case study for you:



We take a 26kt, 19,500kt ship with a 11in guns and a 7in armor belt. It's a BC.



We take the guns down to 10in, without changing anything else, and add a little extra armor to the design. It is now a CA (though arguably, it's a tougher and potentially more capable ship than the BC as a result), though it costs and performs almost the same.



We take off 3kt of speed, put the 11in guns back and add the remaining capacity to armor. It is now a BB.



Now we add 2 extra turrets, and remove armor so that its main belt is identical to the BC we started with, and actually weaker than the CA (!). It is still a BB.



Now, we change nothing, just slightly redistribute the armor, leaving the main belt at 6in instead of 7. It is now a 23kt BC.



And finally, we take the guns down to 10in and put armor on it that's heavier than either the 23kt/10 gun BB or BC - everything else stays the same. It is now a CA, even though it's better-protected than the other two.

So, as you can see, it really is a fine line! What really matters is what you expect that ship to do and how you'll use it.

[jma286]

I personally didn't expect to find CAs very useful in the game, but if you don't have some good ones the many cruiser battles you'll be fighting will be quite painful. In my experience, CAs last in front line service until 1913-16(depending on how many resources the nation I'm playing has). CAs are also useful throughout the game as colonial flagships, as building light BCs for colonial service is probably not a wise use of resources for any nations besides Britain.

I often give my most modern, powerful CAs 2 rebuilds during the game to upgrade machinery, speed, fire control, and gun quality, and they are an effective force through 1925.

[tc27]

I find CAs useful simply due to the number of scenarios only involving cruisers and below that the campaign engine generates.