|
|
Post by hawkeye on Aug 26, 2020 6:57:14 GMT -6
Situation:
Chin China game, 10% research rate, 1921
Trying to design a viable BC is virtually impossible.
I can either go with a 27,000 ton, 26 knot ship with only 2 x twin 13" turrets and decent armor (11" belt-/turret)
or
go up to 28 knots, go with 4 x twin 12" turrets but only 6" of belt/turret armor, since only at 28+ knots of speed am I allowed to have more than 2 turrets
because at 26 knots, adding a 3rd turret turns the ship into a BB.
Suggestion:
1. Remove the restriction on number of turrets, as this rule makes no sense whatsoever.
2. Don't use the year as trigger for speed requirements, but completed technologies
Example: The necessary speed to qualify as a BC increases, after the first capital ship with steam turbines is commissioned.
In Addition:
This mechanic (using researched/used technologies as trigger) could also be used for other things, like the universal availability of oil.
I recently watched a Benjamin Magnus Gaming vid (Spain, 10% research rate), where as usual, oil became generally available in 1920, yet literally no-one had developed oil-firing yet.
This makes the entire "colonies that have oil" mechanic pointless.
So instead of using 1920 as a trigger, make oil generally available, say, 10 or 15 years after the first nation develops oil-firing.
|
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 4, 2020 5:23:33 GMT -6
Situation:Chin China game, 10% research rate, 1921 Trying to design a viable BC is virtually impossible. I can either go with a 27,000 ton, 26 knot ship with only 2 x twin 13" turrets and decent armor (11" belt-/turret) I'm not sure exactly what year in a 100% tech game would be approximately equal to where you are now, but you might try shaving the belt down to 9 or 10 inches. Penetration in the early game is not great, and turret protection is more vital than belt protection. (I generally go for a two inch difference between the two on capital ships). A few more suggestions based on the ship in your other thread on the topic: 1) 3" armor on 5" secondaries is a bit much. The real life Iowas only had 2" armor on their 5" guns, and they were 1940s era ships. In game, I never armor 6" more than 2", and 5" guns only get 1" if I'm strapped for weight. If weight is really tight, at least in the early game, I'll use unarmored 4" guns. None of these has ever resulted in a secondary flash fire for me. 2) I think you're a bit early to need a 3" deck. 2.5" or 2" should do. Keep the turret top armor as it is. 3) I do armor the ends of my capital ships before AON becomes available, but generally not behind splinter protection, especially on BCs. I'd suggest BE 2" / DE 1". 4) I generally forgo CT armor on BCs. You might try a 3 turret arrangement to save some weight. I'm quite partial to 6-gun layouts. It's not so much a restriction of something that would be otherwise allowed as a allowance for something that would otherwise be invalid. The Japanese built a pair of proto-BCs with a 2 turret layout. Coming as they did before the dreadnought and full-battlecruiser revolutions, the ships were fast by predreadnought standards, but rather slow compared to later ships. The two turret rule allows such ships to be built, as otherwise they wouldn't fit the battlecruiser definition. I'd like to see percentile-based requirements for ship types, e.g, BCs must be faster than the 60th percentile among enemy capital ships, and faster than the 40th percentile of enemy cruisers. |
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Sept 4, 2020 7:55:18 GMT -6
Situation:Chin China game, 10% research rate, 1921 Trying to design a viable BC is virtually impossible. I can either go with a 27,000 ton, 26 knot ship with only 2 x twin 13" turrets and decent armor (11" belt-/turret) I'm not sure exactly what year in a 100% tech game would be approximately equal to where you are now, but you might try shaving the belt down to 9 or 10 inches. Penetration in the early game is not great, and turret protection is more vital than belt protection. (I generally go for a two inch difference between the two on capital ships). Given the unlocked tech, I'd estimate around 1905 to 1906 probably (three center-line turrets and some nations have main wing-turrets) And removing the restriction of only 2 main turrets below 28 knots most _definitely_ would still allow Japanese style proto-BCs since my suggestion doesn't take away anyone's ability to have them as BCs, only widen the definition of a BC to allow for any ship of, say (just as an example) 25+ knots and 2+ main turrets. So I could build a 25 knot/2 x twin 11 inch turrets semi-BC very early in the game, get it up to 26-27 knots a little later or go back to ~25 knots but add another turret or two a little later still. The thing is, all of those (AFAIK) are perfectly legal BCs in 1906 or 1908, but are illegal in 1920, because by that time, 25 knots is not deemed sufficient for a BC, because technology had advanced to a point, where regular BBs reached that speed regularly. Which of course means that, in a game where we can adjust research speed and thus the speed of technology advancing from 100% to 10%, the idea of the year of date determining pretty much _anything_ according to what happened in history is, excuse me saying so, grad-A stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 6, 2020 4:32:08 GMT -6
And removing the restriction of only 2 main turrets below 28 knots most _definitely_ would still allow Japanese style proto-BCs since my suggestion doesn't take away anyone's ability to have them as BCs, only widen the definition of a BC to allow for any ship of, say (just as an example) 25+ knots and 2+ main turrets. What I'm saying is that it's very likely that determining a ship to be a BC based on the speed and the build year, regardless of the number of turrets, is the base case in the code, and that allowing lower speeds for 2-turret ships is a special case. As I result, I tend to think that lobbying the devs for consistency here is more likely to see them applying speed/year restrictions to 2 turret ships rather than loosening them on multi-turret ships. That said, I definitely agree that basing the speed requirement in the build year doesn't combine well with altered research rates. |
|
