|
Post by polygon on Jun 4, 2020 17:25:26 GMT -6
What do you think of this ship as a legacy fleet CL? Heavy cues taken from the USS Olympia, although that ship is slower and more heavily armored (way more heavily armored than you can get on the displacement in game) You might try to add two more torpedo tubes, especially if this is a scout or destroyer leader. Try to increase the belt to 4 inch. reduce the turret tops to 2 inch. and add one more inch to the conning tower which contains the bridge. Reduce the secondaries to 4 inch. because they have a higher rate of fire and it will be needed in a close encounter. One or two more knots might be useful. Good ship design though. Max armor for CLs in game is 3", turret tops already are 2", and I'm not sure where I'd get the weight for the rest. I prefer 5" over 4" for anti-destroyer and especially anti-cruiser work, which is the primary job of such a large CL.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 4, 2020 19:07:36 GMT -6
You might try to add two more torpedo tubes, especially if this is a scout or destroyer leader. Try to increase the belt to 4 inch. reduce the turret tops to 2 inch. and add one more inch to the conning tower which contains the bridge. Reduce the secondaries to 4 inch. because they have a higher rate of fire and it will be needed in a close encounter. One or two more knots might be useful. Good ship design though. Max armor for CLs in game is 3", turret tops already are 2", and I'm not sure where I'd get the weight for the rest. I prefer 5" over 4" for anti-destroyer and especially anti-cruiser work, which is the primary job of such a large CL. It is your design so I agree with your decisions. We all make our design decisions based on what we feel is vital. Nice design.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 5, 2020 18:14:06 GMT -6
Background: There's no way I can keep up with the capital ship and cruiser production of the larger navies as Japan. Meanwhile, around about 1920, the other major powers decided that they would start building heavy cruisers (6-8 guns, 8-10" caliber, 29-30 knots, 5-6" armor). So naturally, I'm designing a ship capable of both engaging enemy screens in a fleet battle (proof against 8" and most 10" shellfire, 12" guns, 30 knots) and also fill most of the roles a CA would, because I can't afford to actually build CAs. Much like the original Invincible concept battlecruisers, the 8 12" guns should allow it to at least meaningfully contribute against enemy capital ships (not in the line of battle, but as supporting units). I've already seen fair success using CLs in this "batter the enemy BBs with HE" role, but 8" (and especially 6") guns are pretty puny in a fleet action. Most importantly, it's about half the cost of a full sized fast battleship. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 5, 2020 19:48:23 GMT -6
Background: There's no way I can keep up with the capital ship and cruiser production of the larger navies as Japan. Meanwhile, around about 1920, the other major powers decided that they would start building heavy cruisers (6-8 guns, 8-10" caliber, 29-30 knots, 5-6" armor). So naturally, I'm designing a ship capable of both engaging enemy screens in a fleet battle (proof against 8" and most 10" shellfire, 12" guns, 30 knots) and also fill most of the roles a CA would, because I can't afford to actually build CAs. Much like the original Invincible concept battlecruisers, the 8 12" guns should allow it to at least meaningfully contribute against enemy capital ships (not in the line of battle, but as supporting units). I've already seen fair success using CLs in this "batter the enemy BBs with HE" role, but 8" (and especially 6") guns are pretty puny in a fleet action. Most importantly, it's about half the cost of a full sized fast battleship. Nice ship, except get rid of the torpedo tubes. If you have to get that close to shoot those, you won't survive. Put armor on your conning tower as it is the center of command and possibly fire control.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 5, 2020 22:40:09 GMT -6
Background: There's no way I can keep up with the capital ship and cruiser production of the larger navies as Japan. Meanwhile, around about 1920, the other major powers decided that they would start building heavy cruisers (6-8 guns, 8-10" caliber, 29-30 knots, 5-6" armor). So naturally, I'm designing a ship capable of both engaging enemy screens in a fleet battle (proof against 8" and most 10" shellfire, 12" guns, 30 knots) and also fill most of the roles a CA would, because I can't afford to actually build CAs. Much like the original Invincible concept battlecruisers, the 8 12" guns should allow it to at least meaningfully contribute against enemy capital ships (not in the line of battle, but as supporting units). I've already seen fair success using CLs in this "batter the enemy BBs with HE" role, but 8" (and especially 6") guns are pretty puny in a fleet action. Most importantly, it's about half the cost of a full sized fast battleship. Nice ship, except get rid of the torpedo tubes. If you have to get that close to shoot those, you won't survive. Put armor on your conning tower as it is the center of command and possibly fire control. I put torpedoes on capital ships for different reasons in different periods 1. In the very early game, gun accuracy is so awful that closing to 600 yards absolutely does happen, I go full Nelsonian T-crossing and fleet splitting brawl. So they get 4 torpedo tubes underwater. These are the predreadnougts 2. In the mid game (ww1-1920s) I put a single torpedo tube on each side mostly for the very gamey reason that I want to be able to see torpedo range with my battleship selected. It gives me a visual clue to evading destroyers. 3. In the late game, torpedo ranges get so long that they're usually most of or longer than visual range, so I put deck mount quad launchers with reloads on. Sure you don't want to be close, but in anything but perfect weather torpedoes are dangerous. You're right about the conning tower, I missed that, the next revision will have 10" belt, turrets, and conning tower. Also, the torpedo tubes got good use in a major fleet battle with Russia, a surprise attack on Vladivostok. The enemy fleet retreated into the harbor but away from the port, visibility was very bad because of large amounts of smoke, and I struck a few of their BCs with torpedoes from my BCs
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jun 5, 2020 23:02:51 GMT -6
I'll also note that torpedos on capital ships are useful if you get into a surprise night encounter, and as finishing weapons in single-ship engagements.
As for CT armor, when I'm trying to save weight and boost speed, it tends to be somewhere below BE/DE in priority for what armor to keep (except after AoN, when BE/DE receives no priority at all). Turrets always get the highest priority, then citadel protection, then the remaining items depending on design priorities.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Jun 5, 2020 23:13:49 GMT -6
2. In the mid game (ww1-1920s) I put a single torpedo tube on each side mostly for the very gamey reason that I want to be able to see torpedo range with my battleship selected. It gives me a visual clue to evading destroyers. Kinda off topic, but can we please, pretty please get that circle _without_ doing this? (yes, I'm doing the same, only it's usually a single bow-mounted tube - and it annoys the heck out of me that I have to do it)
|
|
|
Post by tordenskjold on Jun 6, 2020 8:04:37 GMT -6
I'm trying to build a minelaying raider CL. Let's see how this works out... (SSMs and SAMs are just a max-tech commodity, so in a "real" game they should be missing)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2020 10:50:21 GMT -6
I'm trying to build a minelaying raider CL. Let's see how this works out... (SSMs and SAMs are just a max-tech commodity, so in a "real" game they should be missing)
If you are building a ship to be a raider and minelayer, might click on Magazine Box, Unit Machinery and inclined belt. You might be able to increase the gun caliber to 6 inch, but I would have to try it. I would reduce the medium AA guns and add more Light AA guns since they are lighter and fire faster. If this is a raider I doubt it is going to meet too many aircraft except flying boats on scouting. They probably won't attack just fly over to determine who you are. Here is my version of your idea.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 6, 2020 16:28:17 GMT -6
In the spirit of the thread's "experimental" title, I'm running an experiment I've been curious about for a while. What if you built a predreadnought with the "protected cruiser" armor scheme? The Italians did it irl. So I started a 1900 Germany game, designed these two ships, built 4 of each, and started a fleet exercise. These ships are broadly the same, but with different armor schemes. I'll repeat the test later with "proto all or nothing" narrow uniform belts. Unsurprisingly, the protected cruisers dreadnoughts lost, but not by the margin you'd expect or in the way you might expect. They were super flammable. one sunk by both fire and flotation and another nearly sunk by fire. I assume this is due to the unarmored superstructure. Although that might also simply be a quirk of 1900 combat with many secondaries, because the full-belted ship that sunk also burned down. Reviewing the logs, the one that sunk by flotation and fire sunk because apparently 14 knots is still "high speed increases flooding" territory in 1900. Fair, I suppose, the top speed is only 19. So, takeaways: Protected cruiser armor scheme protected the engines and magazines just fine. The superstructures of the protected cruiser ships took *significantly* more damage. Fire is how ships die in 1900. All expected results, but I thought it worth testing. You can get significantly thicker armor using the protected cruiser scheme in 1900, but it's not worth it because the superstructure is paper, even with 24 casemates of 2" armor.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 6, 2020 16:42:39 GMT -6
Next test: proto-all-or-nothing (narrow belt, uniform thickness) versus conventionally armored predreadnoughts. They are identical except for the armor scheme. The red force ships are 10/10 narrow, the blue force ships are 10/4 regular. The two battlelines sat about 800 yards apart and wailed away at each other ineffectively pretty much until nightfall. At which point I cheerfully closed to torpedo range and sunk two of their ships with torpedoes. Unfortunately, I don't think that tells us much about armor schemes, rather that the AI is pretty bad at predreadnought torpedo knife-fights. There ARE instances in the logs though of the protoAON ships penetrating the BE of the conventionally armored ships. As expected, the protoAON ships took more hull fore/aft hits, but flooding didn't seem to be significantly greater (I did, however, detach one ship due to a flooding of 52 from fore/end hits). I personally think the protoAON ships are superior, but I'd be happy to hear other thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2020 17:06:20 GMT -6
In the spirit of the thread's "experimental" title, I'm running an experiment I've been curious about for a while. What if you built a predreadnought with the "protected cruiser" armor scheme? The Italians did it irl. So I started a 1900 Germany game, designed these two ships, built 4 of each, and started a fleet exercise. These ships are broadly the same, but with different armor schemes. I'll repeat the test later with "proto all or nothing" narrow uniform belts. Unsurprisingly, the protected cruisers dreadnoughts lost, but not by the margin you'd expect or in the way you might expect. They were super flammable. one sunk by both fire and flotation and another nearly sunk by fire. I assume this is due to the unarmored superstructure. Although that might also simply be a quirk of 1900 combat with many secondaries, because the full-belted ship that sunk also burned down. Reviewing the logs, the one that sunk by flotation and fire sunk because apparently 14 knots is still "high speed increases flooding" territory in 1900. Fair, I suppose, the top speed is only 19. So, takeaways: Protected cruiser armor scheme protected the engines and magazines just fine. The superstructures of the protected cruiser ships took *significantly* more damage. Fire is how ships die in 1900. All expected results, but I thought it worth testing. You can get significantly thicker armor using the protected cruiser scheme in 1900, but it's not worth it because the superstructure is paper, even with 24 casemates of 2" armor. military.wikia.org/wiki/Protected_cruiser
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2020 17:10:28 GMT -6
Next test: proto-all-or-nothing (narrow belt, uniform thickness) versus conventionally armored predreadnoughts. They are identical except for the armor scheme. The red force ships are 10/10 narrow, the blue force ships are 10/4 regular. The two battlelines sat about 800 yards apart and wailed away at each other ineffectively pretty much until nightfall. At which point I cheerfully closed to torpedo range and sunk two of their ships with torpedoes. Unfortunately, I don't think that tells us much about armor schemes, rather that the AI is pretty bad at predreadnought torpedo knife-fights. There ARE instances in the logs though of the protoAON ships penetrating the BE of the conventionally armored ships. As expected, the protoAON ships took more hull fore/aft hits, but flooding didn't seem to be significantly greater (I did, however, detach one ship due to a flooding of 52 from fore/end hits). I personally think the protoAON ships are superior, but I'd be happy to hear other thoughts. I believe that the narrow sloped deck is definitely superior. The protected deck was simply to protect against splinters. I don't build protected deck nor narrow belts for that reason. But it is good to experiment. It is the way navies developed over the history naval warfare. Good work.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 6, 2020 17:12:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by skyhawk on Jun 8, 2020 10:08:45 GMT -6
I haven't done it since I switched to playing RTW2 but I used to build early CA and all forward gun BC with Protected armor schemes, especially when playing Italy or Japan. The reduction in weight allowed me to build fair numbers of fast small BC with solid armor thicknesses where they had it. I got good service out of them. I may need to experiment with such designs again in RTW2.
|
|