lucur
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by lucur on Jul 5, 2020 16:40:08 GMT -6
I'd go with oldpop here, 16" guns penetrate pretty much anything the game throws your way and more barrels means faster ladder aiming, leading to earlier and more hits. I'd love to build an 18" H-class or Yamato rip off, but couldn't find a justification considering the price. As was said before, carriers and planes are the major threat past the 40s, and carriers sink to 12" guns just as much as 18".
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 6, 2020 11:39:28 GMT -6
The 'Montana' layout of 12x16" is ideal, for me. But then I like a 12-gun battery better than 8 or 9 and am willing to drop caliber an inch or two to get it... My past games show you can win battles with massed 14" batteries (if you have DDs for the coup de grace) and a good 15" gun will work perfectly well also.
One 'house rule' I play by is to limit caliber increases to 2" or a +1... so I won't go from 12" to 13" but will move up to 13"+1 or 14".
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Jul 6, 2020 15:36:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 6, 2020 15:58:28 GMT -6
Interesting design, but I am glad I am not on duty in those those four gun turrets, Ich.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Aug 28, 2020 9:18:49 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 think we should distinguish between three different technological paradigms at play in pre-dreadnought design. For first generation pre-dreadnoughts of approximately 1900 - 1902 vintage, the traditional incremental layout is theoretically very efficient, as most opponents will field a large number of 6 / 7" guns which can be stopped at combat ranges by relatively little armour, whether firing AP or HE. A large part of a typical battleship's broadside firepower will be concentrated in this low penetration range; for example, a battleship with a fairly unimpressive 4 x 12", 12 x 6" gun layout will have a main battery broadside output of 3,680 and a secondary battery broadside output of 2,484 - a roughly 60 / 40 split. If we maximise damage output with 4 x 13", 24 x 7", we have a main battery broadside output of 4,160 and a secondary output of 6,036 which of course is a roughly 40 / 60 split. If the secondary battery is firing HE shells, then its damage output relative to heavy AP shells is still greater. Given that a 50 / 50 ammo split is the default and therefore (presumably) what the AI will use, this should be taken into account. In your incremental design, only 8% of total armour weight is spent on 4" of BE. While I am unsure of the actual numbers, I think it suffices to assume that the additional thick armour in a uniform narrow belt scheme will negate only some of the flotation damage which would otherwise be inflicted by heavy guns, while the additional thin armour in a normal scheme will negate most of the flotation damage which would otherwise be inflicted by light guns. Unless the difference in coverage between a normal and narrow scheme is only very marginal, this trade-off seems eminently worthwhile to me. At the beginning of the semi - dreadnought era from about 1903 - 1906, this paradigm begins to reverse as secondary gun calibres increase, but effective combat ranges do not immediately increase with them, leading to an overall increase in damage penetration. It therefore becomes increasingly expensive, though by no means unfeasible, to eliminate the enemy's secondary damage output. Finally, during the late semi - dreadnought and early dreadnought era of 1906 onwards, technological trends pull in opposite directions. On one hand, the balance of damage output swings decisively towards the main battery, (for example, a typical early dreadnought with an 8 x 12" , 12 x 6" broadside has a damage output ratio of 75 : 25) making the extra heavy armour of the uniform narrow scheme more attractive. On the other, the rapid escalation of combat ranges outpaces the increasing penetration of intermediate calibre weapons, so it once again becomes relatively cheap to negate the still significant flotation damage output of all but the heaviest weapons at reasonable combat ranges. As this trend of combat range outpacing the penetration of light (and, to a large extent, heavy) guns continues for over a decade thereafter, a relatively light ~ 4" BE will continue to be useful.
|
|
|
Post by tordenskjold on Oct 3, 2020 7:44:24 GMT -6
In another missile-heavy late game, I tried to focus on that "great firepower on a cheap, disposable unit" doctrine, and this is what I came across:
Let's see how these play out. By the way, their total build cost is about 40k, about as much as a large light cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Oct 4, 2020 7:38:07 GMT -6
In another missile-heavy late game, I tried to focus on that "great firepower on a cheap, disposable unit" doctrine, and this is what I came across:
Let's see how these play out. By the way, their total build cost is about 40k, about as much as a large light cruiser.
Noticed the rear SSM in spots 3 & 4. Query: Do SSM still obey gun arcs?
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Oct 4, 2020 8:18:18 GMT -6
Just a note on experimenting with using the Wonder Niners 900 dt DD. Did just run a battle 1919 where a small force of 6 of the 900dt DD did have enough firepower to bring down 7+ transports of a convoy while engaged by a larger number of enemy DD. A few of my DDs were lost. The take away being that the for-aft 5" ish and 3"secondaries with 4-5 torpedo tubes is proving effective in the mission of DD attack on a convoy.
I've also early 1919 started building a 1,000 dt DD with 6" for-aft guns though they have the -20 ROF penalty. Pretty sure they also list dramatically on firing a broadside. This 1,000 dt DD with the technologies unlocked is main 2 of 6" single (A, Y), secondary 2 of 3" single, 6 torpedo as 2 of 3 launchers, 30 knots.
A comparison to consider is say how a 5,000 CL would compare to equal tonnage of these DDs. The DDs might end up with a greater number of 6" guns (in this case 10 but at -20% ROF effectively 8) but a huge amount of torpedoes, 30 in this case. Armor is missing on the DD with dispersion (having multiple things to sink to stop all of it) being its own defense.
Note: The choice in this game to try the 6" DD is greatly influenced by the current naval guns being 4"q0; 5"q-1 or 6"q+1.
|
|
|
Post by tordenskjold on Oct 4, 2020 8:44:16 GMT -6
In another missile-heavy late game, I tried to focus on that "great firepower on a cheap, disposable unit" doctrine, and this is what I came across:
Let's see how these play out. By the way, their total build cost is about 40k, about as much as a large light cruiser.
Noticed the rear SSM in spots 3 & 4. Query: Do SSM still obey gun arcs? Yes, it seems they do. I should add that I put the launchers there because lining them on centerline positions resulted in that "crowded centerline reduced ROF" thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2020 17:43:38 GMT -6
I present the concept of an All and Everything armour scheme, where ideally (I do do some minor fluctuations) you only have two armour values, the deck and the hull. Belt=Belt Extended=Turret=Secondary=Conning Tower, while Deck=Deck Extended=Turret Roof. I feel like I am gaming the calculations in some fashion and I honestly doubt the designs are good, but I have never gotten to see them in battleship engagements. Maybe when SSMs are added it might be useful on modernized battleships depending on the penetration of such missiles. Immune to missiles and bombs, and no longer has to worry about 16 inch guns everywhere. Thats not All and Everything, that is Not enough and Not enough as well.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Oct 7, 2020 10:09:50 GMT -6
I present the concept of an All and Everything armour scheme, where ideally (I do do some minor fluctuations) you only have two armour values, the deck and the hull. Belt=Belt Extended=Turret=Secondary=Conning Tower, while Deck=Deck Extended=Turret Roof. I feel like I am gaming the calculations in some fashion and I honestly doubt the designs are good, but I have never gotten to see them in battleship engagements. Maybe when SSMs are added it might be useful on modernized battleships depending on the penetration of such missiles. Immune to missiles and bombs, and no longer has to worry about 16 inch guns everywhere. Thats not All and Everything, that is Not enough and Not enough as well. Well I can see where is coming from. Maybe quoting a "all and everything" definition would help but I'm not sure there is one. It was more that all parts got some armor was normal until the "All or Nothing" came up for long range heavy shell fights. I often don't use AoN even in late game. The AoN does save some armor weight while protecting the important bits it comes to ~1-2" more and that means ~1000-2000 yards closer in vs gun XXX. All or Nothing, gives up armored the belt extended and deck extended which typically have things like crew quarters. This matters if, like the USA was thinking, that battleships with mechanical calculating devices could hit things at longer ranges also meant small secondary guns (oh say merely 5" guns) wouldn't be in range or wouldn't hit often. Just a refresher the "important bits" are approximately the boilers that make heat, the turbines or engines that turn heat to motion, magazines and enough core displacement to keep the rest of the ship barely floating. In rule the waves 2 the Belt Extended is also applied to the funnels and intakes. Though uncommon splinter damage to funnels can take off a few knots of speed. Like the historic Germans the AoN isn't always the "right" choice. Its "a" choice but not the only one. A lot of close in action fighting will get hits on the BE by destroyers and other things. I find that in long range duels it is easier to escape a damaged ship. Thus the long range isn't the decision battle I'm looking for. My main doctrine is dueling big guns coming to 10000 - 15000 yds so that in a sudden burst charge of the destroyers to get into good torpedo positions. Here its easy to drift a few thousands yards in closer to get penned even with AoN while there is a lot more hits to the BE and the funnel risks. So I tend to favor having 2"- 3" BE to defend from destroyer guns and the splinters from big guns that might damage the funnels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2020 17:20:01 GMT -6
Thats not All and Everything, that is Not enough and Not enough as well. Well I can see where is coming from. Maybe quoting a "all and everything" definition would help but I'm not sure there is one. It was more that all parts got some armor was normal until the "All or Nothing" came up for long range heavy shell fights. I often don't use AoN even in late game. The AoN does save some armor weight while protecting the important bits it comes to ~1-2" more and that means ~1000-2000 yards closer in vs gun XXX. All or Nothing, gives up armored the belt extended and deck extended which typically have things like crew quarters. This matters if, like the USA was thinking, that battleships with mechanical calculating devices could hit things at longer ranges also meant small secondary guns (oh say merely 5" guns) wouldn't be in range or wouldn't hit often. Just a refresher the "important bits" are approximately the boilers that make heat, the turbines or engines that turn heat to motion, magazines and enough core displacement to keep the rest of the ship barely floating. In rule the waves 2 the Belt Extended is also applied to the funnels and intakes. Though uncommon splinter damage to funnels can take off a few knots of speed. Like the historic Germans the AoN isn't always the "right" choice. Its "a" choice but not the only one. A lot of close in action fighting will get hits on the BE by destroyers and other things. I find that in long range duels it is easier to escape a damaged ship. Thus the long range isn't the decision battle I'm looking for. My main doctrine is dueling big guns coming to 10000 - 15000 yds so that in a sudden burst charge of the destroyers to get into good torpedo positions. Here its easy to drift a few thousands yards in closer to get penned even with AoN while there is a lot more hits to the BE and the funnel risks. So I tend to favor having 2"- 3" BE to defend from destroyer guns and the splinters from big guns that might damage the funnels. I agree. And I also dont think that AoN is the universal better option. However, if anyone wants to use a uniform armor thickness of B and BE, he should at least make the armor strong enough to protect against enemy main batteries at some decent range. Otherwise its a waste of weight on both the B and BE part. If you dont plan your armor to be able to resist main guns, make it just good enough to resist secondary guns. If you make it thick, but not thick enough to be reliable, you make it either Not-egoung or Not-enough (NoN), or its Excesive or Excesive (EoE) - in case of resisting secondary battery fire. All and everything for me is when both B and BE can shake off main battery hits of the contemporary enemy BB at 10k yds (or at least at 12k). If you make your ship vulnerable at less than 15k yds, you are facing a real danger during most battles, as most BB to BB engagement (between the time of 2nd generation of dreadnoughts and the age of radar controlled blind fire) is fought at 10k-15k yards (sometimes even less). I have found out that before the 1930´s its usually good to pretty much ignore the deck armor and put everything you have into B armor, T armor and broadside weight. If you do that, you ensure that your ship will not get blown up and you will shred enemy ship before he shreds yours, which is always good. Heavy BE armor just takes away all that useful weight that could have protected ur ship against magazine hits, or could help you to sink the enemy. And for what? For potentially saving a little bit of flot. and supers. points that will not cause a major problem anyway. It may be useful to try and build a specialized BB "damage sponge", but I´ve never done it (because of the flawed {to say at least} match maker, that would send those ships into the battle without a properly armed BBs as a backup). My stategy is to always build ships that can fight with any contemporary enemy ship of the same class on their own. And wasting either weight on BE, or money to make the ship bigger and compensate for that weight increase is just not feasible. If I do that, I will soon find myself outnumbered 2:1 against a economicaly weaker nation. By the way, when it comes to armor, the game mechanics are EXTREMELY random. The devs say that it compensates for the armor being thinner in certain parts, I say that its a randomnes overshoot. Anyway, what it causes is that im reluctant to invest into things that often gets bypassed. Thats why I rather invest in more guns, because if you keep hitting the enemy, he gets an accuracy debuff and can not hit you properly. The most effective tactics is therfore to hit first, hit hard, and most importantly - keep hitting until the enemy ship sinks.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Oct 7, 2020 23:31:46 GMT -6
Well... actually... I'd say rush him with swarms of torpedo armed destroyers 1910s Wonder Niners or 1920s 1,300 tonners: both typically at 1 torpedo per 150 tons of DD. My use of BB/BC is to establish the "position of battle". If it was a land war I'd say the "Front" but in navy battles everyone is always moving. My BB/BC goal is to have a moderate gun duel while luring the enemy into a situation where the DD swarm can charge with some of the DD getting into good launch position. The result is often 1-2 DD lost per enemy BB/BC. Note how this is a combined arms doctrine vs a "my battleship vs their battleship". My BB in this case follow that Turret armor = main gun size; Tur Top at 1/3. For BB it is belt armor high suggesting 10-12" with BE at 2.5-3"; this is long range main gun protection and splinter/he defense from secondary/destroyers. BB speed is 20 - 24 knots (technology affects a lot here). The BC for this have B around 5-6" for defense from CL or destroyer guns, BE around 2.5", weight assigned so that they higher speeds ~29+ knots (again technology affects final result).
|
|
|
Post by gazimu on Nov 22, 2020 0:13:30 GMT -6
Decided to have a bit of a different design strategy for a US run, going for 'fewer, bigger' guns as much as possible. This ship class has been the workhorse of the fleet for nearly 20 years. Original design was done in 1921, with much less AA, no floatplanes and a slower speed. Built 4 of them and they've all survived into 1939 where I am now, and they've had a hand in killing at least a dozen battleships and a fair few battlecruisers as well. The bigger gun path worked rather well all considered in the age of battleships. They're armoured enough to handle fire from battleships the AI makes, never had any issues with the turret fires or whatnot. General strategy was to use battlecruisers to lure or herd the enemy battle line in close. -1 quality guns doesn't matter as much at closer ranges, and these guns don't need many hits to cripple something. Has been a fun power trip definitely made possible by the power of the US naval budget.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Nov 22, 2020 3:19:33 GMT -6
View AttachmentDecided to have a bit of a different design strategy for a US run, going for 'fewer, bigger' guns as much as possible. This ship class has been the workhorse of the fleet for nearly 20 years. Original design was done in 1921, with much less AA, no floatplanes and a slower speed. Built 4 of them and they've all survived into 1939 where I am now, and they've had a hand in killing at least a dozen battleships and a fair few battlecruisers as well. The bigger gun path worked rather well all considered in the age of battleships. They're armoured enough to handle fire from battleships the AI makes, never had any issues with the turret fires or whatnot. General strategy was to use battlecruisers to lure or herd the enemy battle line in close. -1 quality guns doesn't matter as much at closer ranges, and these guns don't need many hits to cripple something. Has been a fun power trip definitely made possible by the power of the US naval budget. That's close to what I do, except that I use a 2x3 AB main battery instead of 3x2 ABY, and tend to go for more speed.
|
|