|
Post by eaterofsuns on May 28, 2020 8:30:10 GMT -6
Can you not refit quads into triples? That seems like an oversight considering the North Carolinas were designed with quad 14" turrets that had the same turret ring diameter as the triple 16" designed in case the escalator clause was invoked. But why would you ever want to downgrade from glorious maximum dakka of quad turrets? /s
In all seriousness I've never tried to refit a quad turret, by the time I have the tech to do so I am more likely to lay down a new ship than to try to squeeze more life out of an old one in that way.
Wandering back to the initial question of this thread, I also have a pretty solid stop point, though for me that happens at 17", that 50% jump in shell weight vs a 16" is just too appealing. The slight increase in weight seems to be worth the massive increase in damage. Before I get there though I tend to focus on the heaviest guns I can make that are Q1. If I happen to get stuck on 15" Q1 for a while, then that's where I stay. In theory If I somehow researched 18" Q1 before 16-17" I might try those, but in practice it has never happened in all my games.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on May 31, 2020 2:22:44 GMT -6
Bizarrely (this must be a bug) although you can't change the number of guns in a quad turret (ie 4 14" can not be rebuilt as 3 16"), if you have the spare weight (say from pulling a turret) you can for some reason go from quad 14" to quad anything (12, 15, 16, 18") turrets.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 31, 2020 8:58:41 GMT -6
Bizarrely (this must be a bug) although you can't change the number of guns in a quad turret (ie 4 14" can not be rebuilt as 3 16"), if you have the spare weight (say from pulling a turret) you can for some reason go from quad 14" to quad anything (12, 15, 16, 18") turrets. Hmm. Is it only 14" Quads that can be so adjusted, i.e. not 15" or 13"? That is a curious bug indeed.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on May 31, 2020 13:35:22 GMT -6
Bizarrely (this must be a bug) although you can't change the number of guns in a quad turret (ie 4 14" can not be rebuilt as 3 16"), if you have the spare weight (say from pulling a turret) you can for some reason go from quad 14" to quad anything (12, 15, 16, 18") turrets. Hmm. Is it only 14" Quads that can be so adjusted, i.e. not 15" or 13"? That is a curious bug indeed. You can rebuild 3×4×12" as 2×4×14" and the editor doesn't throw any errors.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 3, 2020 14:04:51 GMT -6
Since making this thread I've played a gun quantity > size Germany playthrough up to 1940. My favorite layout has been 12 guns in 3 quadruple turrets. Starting with 12" guns until the late WW1 period, then 14" guns, and now my first 12×16" gun ships are on the slipways. I've found pretty good success, you get so many hits that you quickly damage and destroy enemies even with smaller weapons than they carry.
What I have found though is that because battleships become so crazy expensive by WW2, that I find myself building 2×4×12" baby BCs of around 20,000t and 30kt, armored for immunity against 10" guns. They are a third the price, and fully capable of battlecruiser roles outside the line of battle. I definitely prefer one quad forward and one aft here, a "big cruiser" like Alaska or Dunkirque spends a lot of time running away
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jun 8, 2020 2:15:50 GMT -6
Since making this thread I've played a gun quantity > size Germany playthrough up to 1940. My favorite layout has been 12 guns in 3 quadruple turrets. Starting with 12" guns until the late WW1 period, then 14" guns, and now my first 12×16" gun ships are on the slipways. I've found pretty good success, you get so many hits that you quickly damage and destroy enemies even with smaller weapons than they carry. What I have found though is that because battleships become so crazy expensive by WW2, that I find myself building 2×4×12" baby BCs of around 20,000t and 30kt, armored for immunity against 10" guns. They are a third the price, and fully capable of battlecruiser roles outside the line of battle. I definitely prefer one quad forward and one aft here, a "big cruiser" like Alaska or Dunkirque spends a lot of time running away Regarding the quad turrets - how do you find their reliability in the early years, before reliable quad turrets are researched? I always assumed them to be quite impractical. As for 20kt, 30 knot ships - I would suggest that you might want to try 31 knots, because while I've seen a large number of vanilla AI ships, including heavy battlecruisers, with a 30 knot maximum speed, I don't think I've seen many ships do 31 knots or above. How do you find the battle generator with these ships? I never usually like to build ships which are clearly inferior to other ships of the same type, because the battle generator's primary concern is, as far as I know, ship type rather than tonnage, so having inferior ships of a given type is simply going to leave you outmatched in total tonnage as well as ship numbers most of the time. Rather than have a 'cruiser killer' BC, then, I have always tended towards CAs designed to counter enemy CAs, BCs designed to counter enemy BCs, and so on. What fleet size do you use?
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 8, 2020 11:05:13 GMT -6
In the playthrough where I made early and heavy use of quad turrets, I had stolen the reliable quad turrets tech very early on from France. I don't use triple or quad turrets before the reliability tech, that's asking for trouble.
In regards to how the 20,000t BCs fare in battle, I'd say they do their job. They fit very closely into the original British style battlecruiser doctrine. You don't really want them in fleet engagements, although they're perfectly adequate as scouts and screens, replacing CAs (which I rarely build without a treaty after BCs are available). Where they really shine is cruiser battles and interceptions. They'll often get put up against enemy CA surface raiders if you put them on raiding or trade protection duty.
If you do get them in a fleet battle, they provide a useful source of heavy gunfire and are cruiser speed. They can't take any real hits from other heavy guns, but if you've drawn the enemy fire with your expensive and durable fast battleships, the cheap BCs can pile on damage and prevent escape.
I usually play on very large fleet size.
|
|
lucur
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by lucur on Jun 8, 2020 11:10:01 GMT -6
I never build quads without advanced tech, even with the tech the things jam semi-regularly. Just spy on France, they get the tech to start with ^^
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 8, 2020 14:31:21 GMT -6
I never build quads without advanced tech, even with the tech the things jam semi-regularly. Just spy on France, they get the tech to start with ^^ I spy on everyone at max unless I'm either the US (who needs to steal tech when you're the world tech leader) or trying to suck up to a country (Britain please don't enter the war please no oh god please)
|
|
|
Post by polygon on Jun 8, 2020 16:43:08 GMT -6
well I guess I know the AI's opinion Attachments:
|
|
geroj
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by geroj on Jun 9, 2020 9:39:04 GMT -6
They just built Gangut on steroids
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Jun 9, 2020 13:05:11 GMT -6
They just built Gangut on steroids Actually really close to Borodino just upgunned an inch
|
|
geroj
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by geroj on Jun 10, 2020 10:39:50 GMT -6
They just built Gangut on steroids Actually really close to Borodino just upgunned an inch You mean those never finished Izmail BCs? Dont know much about them
|
|
|
Post by skoggatt on Jun 11, 2020 21:41:55 GMT -6
well I guess I know the AI's opinion That ship is an abomination. The hidden weakness debuff really isn't going to be doing it any favors, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jun 13, 2020 5:36:11 GMT -6
I think the only thing which makes it strictly unworkable is the minimal turret armour. Besides that, it's a decent design which will have its advantages in 1917.
|
|