|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 18, 2020 15:10:01 GMT -6
I tried to put a SAM on a Corvette with no luck, far too heavy.
Even has full ASW and minesweeping gear, three AA directors, and five medium AA guns. I probably wouldn't build something like this, because a corvette's mission profile within the game means that a SAM installation is very much a luxury rather than a necessity, but it can be done if you wanted to do so. I might suggest investigating ways to improve the gun armament; as much as guns dropped out of favor in the real world as increasingly-capable missile systems and attack aircraft entered service, that's not the environment we face in the game and a 2,000-ton destroyer with only two 5" guns available for use against surface targets is not going to perform well as a surface combatant but will most likely find itself asked to act in that role.
I tried to put two 5 inch. turrets forward and forward superimposed, with the one SAM launcher and it would not work. The launcher's carry too much weight. If we could go to a heavier destroyer, it might work.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 18, 2020 15:39:20 GMT -6
If we could go to a heavier destroyer, it might work. Destroyers can go up to 2,500 tons in the late game, though it's possible that you haven't developed the technology for it yet.
Also, it may be worth considering giving up the autoloaders; autoloaders carry a very significant tonnage cost, but the increase in rate of fire is only 10 to 30 percent according to the manual and the increase in HAA factor is only about 50% per gun going by what's shown in the design screen, so if giving them up buys you even one more gun you're already coming out ahead in this particular case. I would further suggest that having a good armament is more important than having unit machinery, especially on a relatively low-survivability ship such as a destroyer.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 18, 2020 17:31:50 GMT -6
If we could go to a heavier destroyer, it might work. Destroyers can go up to 2,500 tons in the late game, though it's possible that you haven't developed the technology for it yet.
Also, it may be worth considering giving up the autoloaders; autoloaders carry a very significant tonnage cost, but the increase in rate of fire is only 10 to 30 percent according to the manual and the increase in HAA factor is only about 50% per gun going by what's shown in the design screen, so if giving them up buys you even one more gun you're already coming out ahead in this particular case. I would further suggest that having a good armament is more important than having unit machinery, especially on a relatively low-survivability ship such as a destroyer.
I assumed as much about the limit for destroyers, because I have built 2500 ton destroyers. Next game I get to 1956, I will ensure it has 2500 Ton Tin Cans. As to the second ideas, It is my belief, based on history and my experience that when you entered the Age of Aviation, autoloaders and increased rates of fire are vital as are elevated angles. This is especially true of a destroyer one of whose missions is to provide AAA support to the fleet. Again, this historical and you might be right in the game. I will test this. As to unit machinery, no ship is disposable in my view because they cost money. So I will continue to provide that extra level of protection. Thanks for the good advice about the game though, it will help me to play.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 19, 2020 9:23:32 GMT -6
In order to improve and vary my experimental ship designs, I am saving my games that have reached the end of RTW2, circa 1956. I have now saved Russia and Germany. I am now playing USA and will continue with Japan, Great Britain, Italy, France etc. I want to have the ability to design ships from any of the major nations. I will save them to a flash disk for future use and for installing them on my notebook. I am looking forward to this because this is experimentation. I could use some suggestions on how to modify the game to gain some research and other advantages in design. Let me hear from you. I am now playing the games, with the manual on my second monitor. I have an aversion to manuals after forty years of reading technical manuals, program listings and aircraft NATOPS manuals. But that was almost two decades ago, time to get back to reading manuals.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 19, 2020 9:25:41 GMT -6
1920s budget BC finds new life as 40s CG carrier escort With only rear-facing SAMs, much to oldpop's chagrin Edit: Combat testing shows Graf Spee is able to fire her SAMs forward, despite having all mounts aft. How did you get that excellent picture and data screen. I can only get the limited one. Help please, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 19, 2020 11:23:12 GMT -6
1920s budget BC finds new life as 40s CG carrier escort With only rear-facing SAMs, much to oldpop's chagrin Edit: Combat testing shows Graf Spee is able to fire her SAMs forward, despite having all mounts aft. How did you get that excellent picture and data screen. I can only get the limited one. Help please, my friend. That screen is the datascreen from in combat. Simply right click on the ship you desire. Same way you view damage, flooding, and logs.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 19, 2020 11:27:03 GMT -6
How did you get that excellent picture and data screen. I can only get the limited one. Help please, my friend. Several ways:
- Right-click on the ship's icon during a battle scenario either in the main screen or the inset at the bottom left corner of the main screen. - Right-click on the division flag in the main window during a battle scenario, then double-click on the name of one of the ships in the window that pops up.
- Go to the Order of Battle tab, select a ship in the list, right-click on it and select 'Status.' - Go to the Order of Battle tab, select a division in the list, right click on it, select 'Status,' and double-click on the name of one of the ships in the window that pops up. - At the end of the engagement, when the Summary pops up, select 'Ship Details' and double-click on the name of a ship in the list.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 19, 2020 12:20:16 GMT -6
How did you get that excellent picture and data screen. I can only get the limited one. Help please, my friend. Several ways:
- Right-click on the ship's icon during a battle scenario either in the main screen or the inset at the bottom left corner of the main screen. - Right-click on the division flag in the main window during a battle scenario, then double-click on the name of one of the ships in the window that pops up.
- Go to the Order of Battle tab, select a ship in the list, right-click on it and select 'Status.' - Go to the Order of Battle tab, select a division in the list, right click on it, select 'Status,' and double-click on the name of one of the ships in the window that pops up. - At the end of the engagement, when the Summary pops up, select 'Ship Details' and double-click on the name of a ship in the list.
Great, I will copy this into my manual.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 19, 2020 14:45:40 GMT -6
As I indicated in another post, I am trying to get all the major nations to 1956 to use as a basis for ship experimentation. I am now in a USA game circa 1920. Here is my first CV conversion using a 28,600 ton battleship.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 19, 2020 15:51:13 GMT -6
As I indicated in another post, I am trying to get all the major nations to 1956 to use as a basis for ship experimentation. I am now in a USA game circa 1920. Here is my first CV conversion using a 28,600 ton battleship. View AttachmentAlthough it shouldn't matter because if your CV is in surface combat you're already having a bad day; that 1" of armor on the guns is dangerous. 8" gun magazine fires could easily sink that ship.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 19, 2020 16:25:01 GMT -6
As I indicated in another post, I am trying to get all the major nations to 1956 to use as a basis for ship experimentation. I am now in a USA game circa 1920. Here is my first CV conversion using a 28,600 ton battleship. Although it shouldn't matter because if your CV is in surface combat you're already having a bad day; that 1" of armor on the guns is dangerous. 8" gun magazine fires could easily sink that ship. Well, if I got into a gun fight, it might. But this is a mobile flight deck, not a battleship or cruiser. I will keep the carrier force away from the main battle force. That is how carrier task forces operate. During WW2, only the Gambier Bay, an escort carrier was sunk by gunfire due to her slow speed. For the British, only the glorious was sunk by the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau due to incompetence of her captain. Two carriers out of all the carriers in the Allied Fleet. Both were either older slower carriers or escort carriers.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 21, 2020 12:17:43 GMT -6
Just an interesting note:
"Beginning with the rebuilt Queen Elizabeths, the heavy conning tower was eliminated. The heavy-calibre hits it had been conceived to defeat would be relatively few at long range, but at night a ship might be peppered. Without control, she would be a danger in a melee. The tower bridge was therefore provided with a lightly-protected steering position, from which it was hoped the ship would normally be steered, whether or not in action. In Warspite the front and sides were 3in NC, the back 2in NC, the roof 1½in NC and the floor 1in NC."
This is why I save the armor weight from the conning tower, for speed. I can put maybe 1 inch for splinters, but the book and other go on to say that it was difficult to steer the ship from the conning tower, especially at night. So much for my conning towers.
Friedman, Norman. The British Battleship 1906-1946 (p. 55). Pen & Sword Books. Kindle Edition.
Note also that in 1938, Rodney and Nelson were planned to be rebuilt and one of the items on the list.... removal of the conning tower for the same reason. The estimated tonnage saved by removal from QE was 237 tons. They removed aft conning tower and saved another 46 tons.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 23, 2020 22:19:23 GMT -6
I might challenge myself to a game where I restrict myself to 20,000t displacement. What strategies should I use? I'm thinking of investing heavily in torpedo warfare, and building slow tanky BBs with few, large guns.
|
|
lucur
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by lucur on Jun 24, 2020 2:15:16 GMT -6
Staying at 20kt should not be that limiting up until 1910-ish, from there i'd guess you'd have to make a trade off for BBs, either going slow and heavily armed ir medium speed with small guns. Maybe cap out at 14in guns? Also depends on the nation and which sea zones you have to cover ofc. Heavy Cruisers and small gun (say 12in max) BCs should work like a charm, a focus on light forces allows you some punch without the biggest guns. Where i see that limit get really hairy is with carriers, though. You will struggle to get large airgroups while keeping the bits and bobs we all like on our CVs like TPS and AA.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 24, 2020 10:17:20 GMT -6
I might challenge myself to a game where I restrict myself to 20,000t displacement. What strategies should I use? I'm thinking of investing heavily in torpedo warfare, and building slow tanky BBs with few, large guns. As I have said more times than I can count, your geostrategy is based on location of the country, its financial condition, the size of the fleet you decided to allow to build. Japan's two primary opponents are Russia and Germany which both have to move ships to the Far East and this gives Japan an advantage. Against England and France, it is questionable but I have beat them with submarines and moving much of my fleet to Formosa. Against the US, its the distance from Hawaii to Japan and the Philippines. Submarines are of great value in attacking the opponents trade and supplies, I use them all the time and build big fleets. For small countries with limited budgets, don't fight fleet battles, you cannot afford it, run to home. The above information should guide your ship design. restrictions on displacement are good for cost and can provide good to better speed depending on the ship type.
|
|