|
Post by dizzy on Oct 18, 2019 1:28:26 GMT -6
The displacement for Germany's H-44 Battleship design was 131,000 t (129,000 long tons; 144,000 short tons) as designed and up to 139,272 long tons (141,507 t) at full load and Battleships designs didn't stop there. Had Pearl Harbor and Midway not happened, there is every indication that most nations would have continued to build super battleships into the 1940's. 90,000 tons is not enough to achieve similar designs. Japan would have built the A150 which would have made the Yamato class it's bitch. So can we get a tonnage raise? Screw carriers.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Oct 18, 2019 2:25:49 GMT -6
The displacement for Germany's H-44 Battleship design was 131,000 t (129,000 long tons; 144,000 short tons) as designed and up to 139,272 long tons (141,507 t) at full load and Battleships designs didn't stop there. To the best of my knowledge, no H-design past H-41, which was roughly Yamato-size, was seriously considered. Sure, there were studies done on the matter, but I don't think that is a particularly strong reason on it's own to justify it. I mean, the allies went further along in plans to create a 2,000,000t aircraft carrier made out of pykrete, but I don't think anyone here is going to say the game is incomplete for not having that possibility. The 41's weren't even supposed to be built until after the war, and were expected to take the better part of a decade to construct. All the rest were essentially the Kriegsmarine essentially giving Hitler a pat on the head and asking him to go bother some other branch of the military. Pretty much every design that was ever seriously considered falls well below the 90,000t limit. I would also point out that Pearl Harbor and Midway weren't two flukes that convinced everybody to abandon battleships, they were simply clear proof of concepts about the future of naval warfare. The danger planes posed to ships was well understood, but those examples merely showed just how effective the carrier could be in it's role. And the A-150 design was roughly around 70,000 tons. Overall, I don't see further tonnage raising as holding any level of priority. The 90,000t limit encompasses the vast majority of designs. Doubling the tonnage limit requires precious time figuring out the horsepower:speed:weight questions, as well as adjusting the AI to properly utilize and combat such designs. No offense intended to the game or devs, but there are a lot of things I'd like to see fixed before a further increase in tonnage is even faintly considered.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 18, 2019 2:48:22 GMT -6
The displacement for Germany's H-44 Battleship design was 131,000 t (129,000 long tons; 144,000 short tons) as designed and up to 139,272 long tons (141,507 t) at full load and Battleships designs didn't stop there. To the best of my knowledge, no H-design past H-41, which was roughly Yamato-size, was seriously considered. Sure, there were studies done on the matter, but I don't think that is a particularly strong reason on it's own to justify it. I mean, the allies went further along in plans to create a 2,000,000t aircraft carrier made out of pykrete, but I don't think anyone here is going to say the game is incomplete for not having that possibility. The 41's weren't even supposed to be built until after the war, and were expected to take the better part of a decade to construct. All the rest were essentially the Kriegsmarine essentially giving Hitler a pat on the head and asking him to go bother some other branch of the military. Pretty much every design that was ever seriously considered falls well below the 90,000t limit. I would also point out that Pearl Harbor and Midway weren't two flukes that convinced everybody to abandon battleships, they were simply clear proof of concepts about the future of naval warfare. The danger planes posed to ships was well understood, but those examples merely showed just how effective the carrier could be in it's role. And the A-150 design was roughly around 70,000 tons. Overall, I don't see further tonnage raising as holding any level of priority. The 90,000t limit encompasses the vast majority of designs. Doubling the tonnage limit requires precious time figuring out the horsepower:speed:weight questions, as well as adjusting the AI to properly utilize and combat such designs. No offense intended to the game or devs, but there are a lot of things I'd like to see fixed before a further increase in tonnage is even faintly considered. I disagree with everything you said. I just want to build this: The actual tonnage of this design is 167k tons, not 80k. This was a test ship for a test campaign. But let's talk game not talk R/L, just RTW2. In the game, to make a ship with a meager 9x18" gun layout, 30 knots, a belt capable of stopping that round at 16,000 yards is 16" and to stop a Dive bomber of the era you need a 7.5" deck. Ever try making that? You 're already over the 90k ton limit. It's ridiculous we can't build Yamato class successors. So 90k is just not enough. It's not even close.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 18, 2019 4:55:39 GMT -6
But let's talk game not talk R/L, just RTW2. In the game, to make a ship with a meager 9x18" gun layout, 30 knots, a belt capable of stopping that round at 16,000 yards is 16" and to stop a Dive bomber of the era you need a 7.5" deck. Ever try making that? You 're already over the 90k ton limit. It's ridiculous we can't build Yamato class successors. What you describe does not appear to me to be infeasible with more or less full end-game technology: Using 3x2x20" instead of 3x3x18", I can cut the displacement by 5,000. Dropping to 29/28/27 knots without changing anything else about that design allows for a reduction in design displacement of about 9,000/15,000/18,000 tons; dropping to 29/28/27 knots and using 3x2x20" increases that savings to about 13,000/16,500/21,500 tons. At 27 knots and 90,000 tons, I can fit 3x3x20", 4-2-4x19", or 3x4x18", with significant tonnage to spare on the 18" (~800 tons) and 19" (~1,500 tons) designs, and in fact with speed priority on the engines the 19" variant can fit a full DP autoloading 6" secondary and DP autoloading 5" tertiary battery as well as two floatplanes and a catapult.
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Oct 18, 2019 5:33:28 GMT -6
I'm all for less limits for those who fancy doing something bizarre.
The current ingame tonnage limit is made even tighter by the high weight of armour and engine HP requirements that could do with a touch of tweaking.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 18, 2019 5:47:55 GMT -6
But let's talk game not talk R/L, just RTW2. In the game, to make a ship with a meager 9x18" gun layout, 30 knots, a belt capable of stopping that round at 16,000 yards is 16" and to stop a Dive bomber of the era you need a 7.5" deck. Ever try making that? You 're already over the 90k ton limit. It's ridiculous we can't build Yamato class successors. What you describe does not appear to me to be infeasible with more or less full end-game technology: aeson, did I mention end-game technology? No. I'm talking about building these ships in the 40's. Try using 1944 technology. In fact, shortly after the Bismarck was built, Germany envisioned building the H-41 design of successive battleship to "secure invulnerability for ships of capital rank" (German Warships of the second world war by H.T. Lenton page 27) but was abandoned for more ambitious projects like the H-44 design. Let me restate that, Germany abandoned the H-41 design of a 64,000 ton battleship so they could pursue the design of one that was TWICE the displacement. So this all happens in the 1940's. So no, these are not using end game technology. If ww2 had not have kicked off prematurely as it did for the Germans, there is every indication that the H-44 would have been built.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 18, 2019 7:16:05 GMT -6
What you describe does not appear to me to be infeasible with more or less full end-game technology: aeson , did I mention end-game technology? No. I'm talking about building these ships in the 40's. Try using 1944 technology. How about either of these, designed using technology available in a completely-unmodded 1914 save state: Those are technically ships that I could build if I had the dock limit to allow it and cared to blow ~350M on a single ship. Sure, neither quite meets your 16" belt / 7.5" deck specification ... but it's 1914 and they're still coming close to it while meeting the 30-knot and 9x18" specifications under 90,000 tons. If I had torpedo protection systems, I could probably get TP2 onto either of them at the cost of reducing the design speed by a whole 1 knot, too - such a terrible sacrifice.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 18, 2019 7:41:36 GMT -6
The Achilles Heel of any warship has always been aircraft. This was learned ever since Japan sunk Britain's state of the art battleship HMS Prince of Wales and her consort HMS Repulse. Any ship built without significant torpedo protection is a wasted investment. This lesson was not learned until events in ww2 demonstrated them. Had that war not happened, as RTW2 allows you to explore, then it's quite possible that a 1946 built A-150 by Japan would have easily weighed in excess of 100k tons fully loaded. Your design experiments, aeson, do not take into account the fat and trimmings of what come with a 100k ton course meal. I think you need to brush up on your recipe.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 18, 2019 8:19:01 GMT -6
The Achilles Heel of any warship has always been aircraft. This was learned ever since Japan sunk Britain's state of the art battleship HMS Prince of Wales and her consort HMS Repulse. Any ship built without significant torpedo protection is a wasted investment. This lesson was not learned until events in ww2 demonstrated them. Had that war not happened, as RTW2 allows you to explore, then it's quite possible that a 1946 built A-150 by Japan would have easily weighed in excess of 100k tons fully loaded. Your design experiments, aeson , do not take into account the fat and trimmings of what come with a 100k ton course meal. I think you need to brush up on your recipe. Dizzy, read, taking care to note the sections bolded and underlined for emphasis this time: How big of a threat do you think aircraft are and how available do you believe anti-aircraft artillery and torpedo protection systems to be in the save state in which those designs were created?
Also, a large part of the point of posting those designs was to show that battleships which more or less meet your specifications are viable in 1914. If such designs are viable in 1914, they'll be viable later in the game when superior technology allows for better ships to be built.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Oct 18, 2019 8:33:30 GMT -6
The problem with increasing the displacement limit that far beyond historical examples is that because those ships were never built neither were the weapons that would have been developed to deal with them. It would be like having submarines without having depth charges and sonar. Creative people would have come up with creative solutions to make those invincible monstrosities vulnerable money pits.
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Oct 18, 2019 8:37:36 GMT -6
The Achilles Heel of any warship has always been aircraft. This was learned ever since Japan sunk Britain's state of the art battleship HMS Prince of Wales and her consort HMS Repulse. Even earlier than then. The Taranto raid was the start of the end for battleships.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 18, 2019 8:40:59 GMT -6
aeson , sorry, I wasn't criticising your TP2 design the way you think I was. I think you're actually supporting my argument. My statement was more or less devil's advocate for why designs like I am proposing would not get built. Why build something so large and expensive that all it would take to sink would be a few squadrons of bombers which cost many magnitudes less to build and maintain? Countering this, I made it a point to explain how RTW2 involves alternative history and how some things would have happened differently had a few things not happened. For instance, Carriers would not have become prevalent without the Washington Naval Treaty. Germany's naval rearmament would have gone full steam ahead if ww2 hadn't started, etc. So while you can build a 90,000 ton ship in 1914 doesn't mean you should, and that also goes for 1944. However, as I've argued, had things been different, they would have built those ships. They would have grossed over 100k tons. And they likely would have gotten even bigger in short order. So if you CAN build a 90k ton ship in 1914, imagine what you could build in 1944 had history been different. Also, food for thought, Japan's Yamato class was to be succeeded by the A-150 design and be commissioned into service by 1946. But even I was surprised to learn that it really shouldn't surprise anyone that Japan had plans for a successor to the A-150 that was even larger and more menacing. What a monster that would have been... had they been able to afford it.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 18, 2019 9:01:15 GMT -6
The Achilles Heel of any warship has always been aircraft. This was learned ever since Japan sunk Britain's state of the art battleship HMS Prince of Wales and her consort HMS Repulse. Even earlier than then. The Taranto raid was the start of the end for battleships. Actually that's not true, stevethecat. The loss of Prince of Wales and Repulse happened on December 10, 1941 a few days after Pearl Harbor. Admiral Phillips and Captain John Leach chose to gallantly go down with their ships. Speculation has it that part of their decision to go down with their ship was because they knew of the attack on Taranto Harbor better than most and so too did they know of the aerial attack on Pearl and had argued before setting sail to intercept Japan's Malaya invasion group that all these sinkings of naval battleships were to be dismissed outright because they were all a surprise and the ships at port unable to maneuver at sea and thus this wouldn't be the case against them. Prince of Wales and Repulse made history becoming the first capital ships to be sunk solely by air power in open sea and this distinction was the moment battleships began to fade into obscurity.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Oct 18, 2019 9:10:42 GMT -6
If the Japanese had built a ship that could have survived the bombs and torpedoes that killed Yamato the US would have built bigger and better ones. You can't add the ship without adding the response. There are no guided 4,000lb AP bombs with a rocket assisted terminal phase in the game, because they weren't needed so nobody developed them.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 18, 2019 9:25:51 GMT -6
Even earlier than then. The Taranto raid was the start of the end for battleships. Actually that's not true, stevethecat. The loss of Prince of Wales and Repulse happened on December 10, 1941 a few days after Pearl Harbor. Admiral Phillips and Captain John Leach chose to gallantly go down with their ships. Speculation has it that part of their decision to go down with their ship was because they knew of the attack on Taranto Harbor better than most and so too did they know of the aerial attack on Pearl and had argued before setting sail to intercept Japan's Malaya invasion group that all these sinkings of naval battleships were to be dismissed outright because they were all a surprise and the ships at port unable to maneuver at sea and thus this wouldn't be the case against them. Prince of Wales and Repulse made history becoming the first capital ships to be sunk solely by air power in open sea and this distinction was the moment battleships began to fade into obscurity. I agree with stevethecat. Royal Navy knew earlier the dangerous of air power from the Mediterranean. They know it so well that Royal Navy planned that Prince of Wales and Repulse should be accompanied by brand new carrier HMS Indomitable. However two things happen, carrier was damaged on the way and Japanese attacked earlier. Relating to large designs. I do not agree about it. It is not just about adjustments to designing process but to AI and aircrafts. History shows that no matter how well ship is protected single lucky hit can change everything and protection is enough. This is something which will be needed even if player or AI can build such design. RTW2 is probably not ready for that. And there are more important things to do in RTW2.
|
|