|
Post by aeson on May 20, 2020 9:49:24 GMT -6
Therefore, any CL built prior to this tech being unlocked must be a protective cruiser and should be named as such. Now, you can clarify this further by labeling them 1st, 2nd, or 3rd class cruisers, but you have to put the word protective in there because a 1st class armored cruiser is wildly different to a 1st class protected cruiser. This is why the British made it a point to say protected or armored regardless of whether the ship was a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd class vessel. Just calling them by their class was a very good way to get a lot of ships sunk.
I am not aware of any period source in which the the classification system you suggest - that of rate and armor scheme - appears to be in systemic or official use. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, the British had no second or third class cruisers fitted with armor belts in the period in which this rating system was in use, so the 'protected cruiser' in 'second/third class protected cruiser' is superfluous, and as to the first class it would seem to me that an 'armored' and 'protected' dichotomy is unlikely given that the first class cruisers of the protected type and the first class cruisers of the belted type were not constructed contemporaneously and thus by the time sufficient numbers of 'first class armored cruisers' were available to make it feasible to employ the 'first class armored cruisers' and the 'first class protected cruisers' in differing cruiser roles despite their similarities of armament, size, and speed, the 'first class protected cruisers' were largely obsolete anyways, with most of them being in reserve or serving in non-cruiser roles after 1905; Britain's first class cruisers were built to fulfill the same fleet roles regardless of whether they were of the armored or the protected type, and ships such as Powerful and Diadem were expected to be able to defeat any contemporary cruiser of similar or lesser size. "First class armored cruiser," "first class protected cruiser," etc. seems to be a modern categorization, not a period classification.
I have never once seen any source refer to a ship as a 'heavy armored cruiser.'
|
|
|
Post by ieshima on May 20, 2020 13:42:52 GMT -6
Therefore, any CL built prior to this tech being unlocked must be a protective cruiser and should be named as such. Now, you can clarify this further by labeling them 1st, 2nd, or 3rd class cruisers, but you have to put the word protective in there because a 1st class armored cruiser is wildly different to a 1st class protected cruiser. This is why the British made it a point to say protected or armored regardless of whether the ship was a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd class vessel. Just calling them by their class was a very good way to get a lot of ships sunk.
I am not aware of any period source in which the the classification system you suggest - that of rate and armor scheme - appears to be in systemic or official use. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, the British had no second or third class cruisers fitted with armor belts in the period in which this rating system was in use, so the 'protected cruiser' in 'second/third class protected cruiser' is superfluous, and as to the first class it would seem to me that an 'armored' and 'protected' dichotomy is unlikely given that the first class cruisers of the protected type and the first class cruisers of the belted type were not constructed contemporaneously and thus by the time sufficient numbers of 'first class armored cruisers' were available to make it feasible to employ the 'first class armored cruisers' and the 'first class protected cruisers' in differing cruiser roles despite their similarities of armament, size, and speed, the 'first class protected cruisers' were largely obsolete anyways, with most of them being in reserve or serving in non-cruiser roles after 1905; Britain's first class cruisers were built to fulfill the same fleet roles regardless of whether they were of the armored or the protected type, and ships such as Powerful and Diadem were expected to be able to defeat any contemporary cruiser of similar or lesser size. "First class armored cruiser," "first class protected cruiser," etc. seems to be a modern categorization, not a period classification.
I have never once seen any source refer to a ship as a 'heavy armored cruiser.'
I am not aware of any period source in which the classification system you suggest - that of rate and armor scheme - appears to be in systemic or official use.
The majority of my knowledge on the subject comes from Jane’s War at Sea, 1897-1997, 100 years of Fighting Ships which quotes from the 1898, 1905-1906, and 1906-1907 editions (supposedly) verbatim. In these editions, written within the lifespan of the ships in question, they are referred to by both the rate and the armor scheme simultaneously or interchangeably depending on the quoted section. While I cannot confirm that that these quotes are accurate to the writing of the original editions, I would say that Jane’s, being widely considered one of the definitive works on historical warships, would count as an authoritative source on the subject.
Furthermore, as far as I am aware, the British had no second or third class cruisers fitted with armor belts in the period in which this rating system was in use, so the 'protected cruiser' in 'second/third class protected cruiser' is superfluous,
This was the case until the armored cruiser’s role, that being a cruiser fast enough to serve as a fleet scout but also carrying enough armor and armament to stand in a battleline if needed, was superseded by the newer, larger, and more capable battlecruisers. As such, the majority of Britain’s armored cruisers were demoted from active battle fleet units, I.E. 1st class ships, and instead grouped together as 2nd class units. They were generally used as blockade ships during the war, with only a handful seeing combat at Dogger Bank and Jutland. Therefore, while certainly later than expected, armored cruisers were considered to be 2nd class units by the 1910’s.
…is unlikely given that the first class cruisers of the protected type and the first class cruisers of the belted type were not constructed contemporaneously and thus by the time sufficient numbers of 'first class armored cruisers' were available to make it feasible to employ the 'first class armored cruisers' and the 'first class protected cruisers' in differing cruiser roles despite their similarities of armament, size, and speed, the 'first class protected cruisers' were largely obsolete anyways, with most of them being in reserve or serving in non-cruiser roles after 1905;
The British Orlando class armored cruisers were commissioned starting from 1886 to 1887. The Blake and Edgar classes of protected cruisers followed them, commissioning in 1889 to 1892. The British Diadem class protected cruisers were commissioned starting from 1896 to 1898. The Cressy class armored cruisers were commissioned starting in 1899 to 1901. Britain was commissioning large classes of ships (the smallest class being the Blake’s at 2 ships) of both armored and protected cruisers of the 1st class in sequence and tandem. Ships from these classes, with the exception of the Orlando’s, were all still in active service during WWI, so yes, Britain did operate and build armored and protected cruisers contemporaneously. Note that this is only cruisers of the first class and does not take into account the second and third class protected cruisers that also served various roles in WWI alongside armored cruisers and the more modern light armored cruisers.
Britain's first class cruisers were built to fulfill the same fleet roles regardless of whether they were of the armored or the protected type, and ships such as Powerful and Diadem were expected to be able to defeat any contemporary cruiser of similar or lesser size.
This is false, as both the Powerful and Diadem classes were specifically intended to serve as overseas commerce raiders/commerce protectors, hence their large size and expanded range. They were not intended to serve in the battlefleet. This is in contrast to the various types of armored cruisers in service which, admittedly, were used in overseas stations and similar commerce roles but were also intended to be able to serve in the battleline, something that the Powerful’s and Diadem’s were not designed for. Furthermore, both the Powerful’s and the Diadem’s were considered to be white elephants: the Powerful’s were massive, expensive, fuel hogs with crew requirements larger than a contemporary battleship and the Diadem’s, meant to be a smaller, more economical follow-up, were thought to be too lightly armed and armored to accomplish their mission and, thanks to changes made to their hulls in order to maintain the range of the Powerful’s with smaller engines, were awful sea keepers, rolling in even light seas. Similarly, the preceding Edgar and Blake 1st class protected cruisers were intended to serve similar roles, as well as patrol duties around the British Isles. They were not intended to fight with the battlefleet, despite being attached to it, but were instead meant to serve as an early warning system for the fleet.
I have never once seen any source refer to a ship as a 'heavy armored cruiser.'
I can only direct you to Wikipedia for this, quoting the page regarding light cruisers:
“The term is a shortening of the phrase "light armored cruiser", describing a small ship that carried armor in the same way as an armored cruiser: a protective belt and deck. Prior to this smaller cruisers had been of the protected cruiser model, possessing armored decks only.”
These new ships were referred to as light armored cruisers because of their thinner belt and smaller gun size compared to the already in service armored cruisers. However, with the role of the armored cruiser being taken over by the 20000+ ton battlecruiser and the much smaller 5000 ton new light cruisers, there was a sizable gap in the capabilities of the Royal Navy's warships. It was uneconomical to send battlecruisers after commerce raiders or task them with escort duties, as this took them away from their essential fleet roles. But there was every possibility that the light cruisers, assigned to these roles in the stead of the battlecruisers, would encounter something like the first Scharnhorst class, which could easily sink them. As such, the RN decided that an intermediate ship to fit that role was required, being more heavily armed and armored than a light cruiser, but still smaller than a battlecruiser.
This gap was filled by taking the light armored cruiser and increasing the thickness of the belt and the size of the carried armament, creating the heavy armored cruiser, named as such because it was heavier in armament and armor. This means that the heavy cruiser was not derived from the armored cruiser, but instead derived from the light armored cruiser, and in order to tell the two types apart they were call heavy armored cruisers. Therefore, with the commissioning of the Hawkins class in 1919, the RN had light armored cruisers, heavy armored cruisers, and the now very outdated regular armored cruisers in service at the same time (the "newest" armored cruisers were commissioned in the late 00's and weren't sold off until the early 20's).
The reason you don't see anyone refer to a ship as a heavy armored cruiser, despite it being it's original classification, is because when the original armored cruisers were sold off it made much more sense to just shorten the names to 'Light' and 'Heavy', based on either gun size, armor thickness, or a mixture of both. Hence why the Brooklyn's, armed with 6" guns, were considered light cruisers while the New Orleans', armed with 8" guns, were considered heavy cruisers, despite both classes using roughly the same hull and armor.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 20, 2020 17:39:25 GMT -6
Well, that was a very well defended point, and I think for my purposes I'll be going with Protected Cruiser for my at-start CLs, though I have to decide whether to use German naming conventions when I am otherwise writing entirely in English; so I'll be trying to educate myself on that I think!
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 24, 2020 10:56:50 GMT -6
I've just re-read my PLC AAR to familiarize myself with what I'd done before so I do not be too repetitive and perhaps avoid some mistakes. I still find my brain's re-use the same word glitch is reprehensible, but I've been dealing with that for 6 or 7 years and I think that's just the way it is now for some reason.
One thing I am wrestling with is what 'voice' to use. I used a protagonist previously, where-as others I have seen and liked have taken a more factual tack with their story. I think I'll have to resort to 'what I can do best' rather than just make an artistic choice, but it is something I am currently chewing on.
|
|
|
Post by ieshima on May 24, 2020 11:37:20 GMT -6
I've just re-read my PLC AAR to familiarize myself with what I'd done before so I do not be too repetitive and perhaps avoid some mistakes. I still find my brain's re-use the same word glitch is reprehensible, but I've been dealing with that for 6 or 7 years and I think that's just the way it is now for some reason. One thing I am wrestling with is what 'voice' to use. I used a protagonist previously, where-as others I have seen and liked have taken a more factual tack with their story. I think I'll have to resort to 'what I can do best' rather than just make an artistic choice, but it is something I am currently chewing on. I ran into the same problem with my Confederate AAR, starting off with factual writing akin to what could be found in a history book and then abruptly switching to third person narrative halfway through. What I found helps is taking the same basic passage, say having a ship sink or take damage, and write two sections covering it, one in the third person narrative and one in the more factual style, then see which one works better. There is no reason to stick entirely to one style or another, so don't feel obligated to do so.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jul 7, 2020 8:58:06 GMT -6
Just to clarify matters; this has been a stop-start enterprise for months, and it has now unfortunately hit another stop. It will happen, some peripheral issues just need to settle out first.
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 3, 2020 12:14:22 GMT -6
My Byzantine AAR was written almost entirely as a history book but on another forum (Paradox AARLand) I've successfully used a pattern of giving background information through history-book excepts and moving the story along by narrative elements ('A Special Providence'). Or there's 'HistoryPark: Here there Be Dragons' which is almost entirely narrative. It wasn't planned that way (it wasn't planned at all ) so I mostly handled the question by having characters explain background facts to each other or by not explaining at all. Sometimes you want the readers to exercise their minds with a bit of heavy lifting. Here at RtW you can expect the audience to be navy-savvy and so not need to explain technical matters unless you want to. As for re-using a word... the only cure I have found is to write, wait a day or so to re-read and edit, then post and re-read and edit. Then come back years later and think, "Great Goodness! How did I miss THAT?" Gary, I'm sorry to hear life has interfered. I have found that writing can help - if I write. You don't have to put it up for anyone to read.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 24, 2021 23:50:24 GMT -6
So, in the latest testing the list of new development features and "manageable errors" has become, well, manageable, so I was just thinking maybe it was time to consider this again. Everyone thinks it would be useful to showcase the DLC features and - hopefully - entertain as well.
However, I've been pulled up short by an oddly successful and fascinating test-game, & so interesting do I find it that I intend to use it as a basis for an AAR. I've played 35 years already, but hopefully folks will find a 1924-1974(ish) game interesting. Be prepared to greet a non-fascist Italy, though exactly what shape and form I will be determining over the next few days.
I will of course have to start with a pre-game history and then also summarize the first 35 years of the play through. Then I will need to introduce the fleet, and identify the Navy's issues, as well as the Nation's goals. - And solicit opinions from staff officers!
(content coming soon!)
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 26, 2021 19:31:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 12, 2021 20:50:49 GMT -6
I have been considering for quite some time a new AAR, once Life allowed me to, but now that I am approaching the starting mark I am finding I would like to establish something first; some deeper details for aircraft development. I feel the aircraft development system is one of the most fun creations for RTW2, and I want to be able to develop it with some narrative depth. Ideally I would love to have a mod that allowed you to 'click' on an aircraft type and be presented with many more design characteristics than are present in or necessary for the game. Not having this though, I would still like to be able to use the raw numbers the game provides to be able to extrapolate these unknown qualities. I would like to solicit better minds than mine to hone my rough draft of this methodology into something better, perhaps even widely utilized. Mind- I am NOT suggesting this should be in the game; this kind of detail is excessive & unnecessary for game play. ... Rate of Climb is really unnecessary but rather fun I think. Some kind of total of Firepower, Speed/10, and Range/10 modified by Maneuverability somehow would be a fair approximation for aircraft weight to provide rate of climb. (illustration inserted below) Sopwith Pup 100 knots FP 2 M 9 T 3 Rng 160 2+10+16 / 9 = 3.11 (need 1000'/min) P-51 Mustang 400 knots FP 12 M 15 T 9 Rng 375 12+40+37 / 15 = 5.93 (need 3200'/min) F-4 Phantom 600 knots FP 15 M 14 T Rng 420 15+60+42 / 14 = 8 (43,200'/min) Ok. ...so, this gives us numbers that don't at all indicate a direct way to calculate RoC, so we will need a modifier. Pup needs to be about 300, Mustang about 600, and Phantom about 5,000. So lets imagine- '10s 300 '20s 400 '30s 500 '40s 600 '50s 700 / jet 1200 '60s 800 / jet 5000 Horsepower will equal the same mass factor for the aircraft / speed x500 <200, speed x5000 <300, speed x10000 <410, 410+ speed x 25000 "lbs thrust" So I have discovered 2 problems with my flavor-text stats for Horsepower and Rate of Climb.
For Horsepower, I wasn't precise in my notation and wrote it too long ago to recall exactly what I was on about. For Rate of Climb, it works fine for my 3 examples- unfortunately if your aircraft has Lower maneuverability, the Rate of Climb is better. Which isn't exactly cricket in my book.
So, I'm going to re-sort all that nonsense, and will publish my flavor-text stats rather not immediately.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 12, 2021 23:06:37 GMT -6
Ok, crisis averted.
Re-written Horsepower and RoC formula edited into OP.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 23, 2022 7:06:25 GMT -6
My DLC AAR is also the litmus test for these flavor-text formulae, and despite the apparent -running off the rails- of Horsepower stats I am going to stick with it until aircraft get heavier. The problem could just be that naval military aircraft are so far behind that everything looks silly. I haven't had a 200hp engine yet and at this time in Italy their racing seaplanes were heading in an almost insane 3200hp direction.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jun 16, 2022 17:43:00 GMT -6
The next post is coming shortly fwiw, I'd say by Saturday noon.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jun 20, 2022 15:17:41 GMT -6
(well, it was Saturday somewhere) (( ...no it wasn't))
It may seem like my last post is pretty bare for the length of time I anguished over it, and in fact my discarded points and images are substantial, but literary triage ultimately determined Into the Looking Glass was best kept shorter. I will hopefully be able to roll some of the unused material into battle reports.
(((and I might already be thinking about my next AAR...)))
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jun 22, 2022 14:14:17 GMT -6
So, the very first battle I was offered I did not have the option to refuse, and it was a Fleet Action. This event is in many ways fully worthy of its own chapter, so please give me several days to sift the results and discern how best to present it. ^.^
( slight tease... )
|
|