|
|
Post by seawolf on Apr 19, 2021 19:14:04 GMT -6
Apparently both of these are legal designs There’s apparently no tonnage limit for CAs at all and they can go to 90k tons   |
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Apr 20, 2021 2:26:33 GMT -6
Those ships are no larger than the Alaska large cruisers
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Apr 20, 2021 2:59:05 GMT -6
Those ships are no larger than the Alaska large cruisers They can go up to 90k tons, sorry, should’ve posted that as an example |
|
geroj
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by geroj on Apr 20, 2021 7:09:33 GMT -6
I would like alaska but game limit CA to 10 inch guns. You can make 11" cruiser but its limited to 12000t and 6 guns and I think there is belt armor limit as well (why?). And then there is this, one of my fav. It needs to be under 9000t and 3" of belt armor to get 8 guns on it  |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 20, 2021 9:23:37 GMT -6
I would like alaska but game limit CA to 10 inch guns. For the purposes of the game, an Alaska-style "large cruiser" is a battlecruiser. If you would like to build one, you will have to build it as such.
You sure about that 9,000-ton, 3" belt limit?
Additionally, Deutschland-type CAs built on 10,000 tons or less also lack a restriction on maximum gun caliber, so if you wanted to do so you could fit eight 20" guns onto this, although the resulting design might be a bit dubious.
My guess would be that Fredrik wanted to allow something like the proposed British WWII-era 9.2" cruiser to be built in the game and didn't think to put a maximum displacement on the CA classification because, well, why would you build a huge, inadequately-armored, and marginally-armed ship when you can build a battleship or battlecruiser with better armament and better armor protection for essentially the same cost and don't need a CA remotely as large as this to defeat the CAs that the computer builds?
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Apr 20, 2021 12:50:24 GMT -6
My guess would be that Fredrik wanted to allow something like the proposed British WWII-era 9.2" cruiser to be built in the game and didn't think to put a maximum displacement on the CA classification because, well, why would you build a huge, inadequately-armored, and marginally-armed ship when you can build a battleship or battlecruiser with better armament and better armor protection for essentially the same cost and don't need a CA remotely as large as this to defeat the CAs that the computer builds?
In that case, I would at least suggest making changes to the battle generator so 40-90k ton CAs are treated as BCs instead of CAs. Its pretty game breaking right now from what people have showed me. Because 16x10" or more, I wouldn't consider marginally armed, and with a 7.5" B and 7" D, they can be better armored than most WWII battleships, so its silly to have them in the battle generator as CAs as is. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 21, 2021 12:18:58 GMT -6
My guess would be that Fredrik wanted to allow something like the proposed British WWII-era 9.2" cruiser to be built in the game and didn't think to put a maximum displacement on the CA classification because, well, why would you build a huge, inadequately-armored, and marginally-armed ship when you can build a battleship or battlecruiser with better armament and better armor protection for essentially the same cost and don't need a CA remotely as large as this to defeat the CAs that the computer builds?
In that case, I would at least suggest making changes to the battle generator so 40-90k ton CAs are treated as BCs instead of CAs. Its pretty game breaking right now from what people have showed me. Because 16x10" or more, I wouldn't consider marginally armed, and with a 7.5" B and 7" D, they can be better armored than most WWII battleships, so its silly to have them in the battle generator as CAs as is. I am curious as to what sort of shenanigans a >40,000-ton CA could get up to that cannot be accomplished by a 25,000- or 30,000-ton CA. A 25,000- or 30,000-ton CA already grossly overmatches typical AI cruiser designs, and I fail to see what real advantage could be secured by building a significantly larger vessel - particularly since a 7" armor deck is excessive for gunnery engagements, especially when your own ship is using 10" guns and so can't engage targets beyond about 20,000 yards, where a four- or five-inch armor deck is sufficient against most heavy guns.
I am additionally curious as to what Second World War-era battleships you are thinking of which have a comparable or inferior armor scheme. Around 7" of deck armor is fairly common on the modern vessels built in the '30s and early '40s, and apart from the Dunkerques and Kongos I don't think that any of the ships categorized as battleships during the Second World War had less than about 11" of belt armor. |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Apr 21, 2021 14:26:18 GMT -6
In that case, I would at least suggest making changes to the battle generator so 40-90k ton CAs are treated as BCs instead of CAs. Its pretty game breaking right now from what people have showed me. Because 16x10" or more, I wouldn't consider marginally armed, and with a 7.5" B and 7" D, they can be better armored than most WWII battleships, so its silly to have them in the battle generator as CAs as is. I am curious as to what sort of shenanigans a >40,000-ton CA could get up to that cannot be accomplished by a 25,000- or 30,000-ton CA. A 25,000- or 30,000-ton CA already grossly overmatches typical AI cruiser designs, and I fail to see what real advantage could be secured by building a significantly larger vessel - particularly since a 7" armor deck is excessive for gunnery engagements, especially when your own ship is using 10" guns and so can't engage targets beyond about 20,000 yards, where a four- or five-inch armor deck is sufficient against most heavy guns.
I am additionally curious as to what Second World War-era battleships you are thinking of which have a comparable or inferior armor scheme. Around 7" of deck armor is fairly common on the modern vessels built in the '30s and early '40s, and apart from the Dunkerques and Kongos I don't think that any of the ships categorized as battleships during the Second World War had less than about 11" of belt armor. I'm referring to a sloped deck armor scheme, where the belt is added to the deck. Apparently with 7" B and 7.5" D they can absorb heavy calibre(But apparently not 18") shells at normal battle ranges! Essentially, it gives you free fast battleships(albeit with light guns) in cruiser and fleet actions compared to the enemy only getting treaty cruiser sized ships |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 21, 2021 16:19:42 GMT -6
I'm referring to a sloped deck armor scheme, where the belt is added to the deck. Apparently with 7" B and 7.5" D they can absorb 18-20" shells at normal battle ranges! Essentially, it gives you free fast battleships(albeit with light guns) in cruiser and fleet actions compared to the enemy only getting treaty cruiser sized ships I would suggest that the claimed resilience against 18" and heavier guns has far more to do with the sheer size of the ship than with the armor scheme. Unless a magazine detonates, a big ship can absorb quite a bit of punishment by virtue of being a big ship even if its armor scheme cannot exclude the incoming shells; the only advantage a 7.5" / 7" armor scheme offers over a 2.5" / 1" armor scheme in such a case is that the design with a 7" deck probably won't suffer as many magazine detonations, as a 7" deck can probably exclude an 18" shell at reasonable battle ranges whereas a 1" deck probably cannot. Of course, at battle ranges reasonable for a 10" gun within the game, I would also expect a three- or four-inch armor deck to be reasonably likely to exclude an 18" shell, so I"m still not seeing the attraction of the extremely heavy armor deck.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Apr 21, 2021 16:22:33 GMT -6
I'm referring to a sloped deck armor scheme, where the belt is added to the deck. Apparently with 7" B and 7.5" D they can absorb 18-20" shells at normal battle ranges! Essentially, it gives you free fast battleships(albeit with light guns) in cruiser and fleet actions compared to the enemy only getting treaty cruiser sized ships I would suggest that the claimed resilience against 18" and heavier guns has far more to do with the sheer size of the ship than with the armor scheme. Unless a magazine detonates, a big ship can absorb quite a bit of punishment by virtue of being a big ship even if its armor scheme cannot exclude the incoming shells; the only advantage a 7.5" / 7" armor scheme offers over a 2.5" / 1" armor scheme in such a case is that the design with a 7" deck probably won't suffer as many magazine detonations, as a 7" deck can probably exclude an 18" shell at reasonable battle ranges whereas a 1" deck probably cannot. Of course, at battle ranges reasonable for a 10" gun within the game, I would also expect a three- or four-inch armor deck to be reasonably likely to exclude an 18" shell, so I"m still not seeing the attraction of the extremely heavy armor deck.
I mean, you're basically going from a 3.5" inclined belt to a 14.5" inclined belt, in terms of effective armor. There's definitely still downsides to it but the current setup makes it very easy to exploit the battle generator into giving you a bunch of low-caliber Battlecruisers |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 21, 2021 17:25:54 GMT -6
I mean, you're basically going from a 3.5" inclined belt to a 14.5" inclined belt, in terms of effective armor. Excluding cases where the target blew up, the internal battle damage simulator suggested around 30 18" hits at 15,000 yards to sink either a 40,000t CA with a 2.5" inclined belt and 1" flat deck or a 40,000t CA with a 7.5" inclined belt and 7" sloped deck, averaging across around a thousand trials, allowing two minutes between hits with damage control permitted, and using the technology available on the 1920 USA start for both the designs and the trials. The only noteworthy difference between the two trial results was that the 2.5" / 1" flat deck CA blew up as a result of a magazine explosion about twice as often as the 7.5" / 7" sloped deck CA.
Unless you have some very strong evidence to the contrary, I would suggest that the hypothesis that a 40,000t CA with a 7.5" inclined belt / 7" sloped deck is resilient against 18" or heavier guns by virtue of its armor scheme is seriously flawed.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Apr 21, 2021 19:46:20 GMT -6
I mean, you're basically going from a 3.5" inclined belt to a 14.5" inclined belt, in terms of effective armor. Excluding cases where the target blew up, the internal battle damage simulator suggested around 30 18" hits at 15,000 yards to sink either a 40,000t CA with a 2.5" inclined belt and 1" flat deck or a 40,000t CA with a 7.5" inclined belt and 7" sloped deck, averaging across around a thousand trials, allowing two minutes between hits with damage control permitted, and using the technology available on the 1920 USA start for both the designs and the trials. The only noteworthy difference between the two trial results was that the 2.5" / 1" flat deck CA blew up as a result of a magazine explosion about twice as often as the 7.5" / 7" sloped deck CA.
Unless you have some very strong evidence to the contrary, I would suggest that the hypothesis that a 40,000t CA with a 7.5" inclined belt / 7" sloped deck is resilient against 18" or heavier guns by virtue of its armor scheme is seriously flawed.
That's actually really cool, I retract my statement about that. |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Apr 21, 2021 21:32:19 GMT -6
I mean, you're basically going from a 3.5" inclined belt to a 14.5" inclined belt, in terms of effective armor. Excluding cases where the target blew up, the internal battle damage simulator suggested around 30 18" hits at 15,000 yards to sink either a 40,000t CA with a 2.5" inclined belt and 1" flat deck or a 40,000t CA with a 7.5" inclined belt and 7" sloped deck, averaging across around a thousand trials, allowing two minutes between hits with damage control permitted, and using the technology available on the 1920 USA start for both the designs and the trials. The only noteworthy difference between the two trial results was that the 2.5" / 1" flat deck CA blew up as a result of a magazine explosion about twice as often as the 7.5" / 7" sloped deck CA.
Unless you have some very strong evidence to the contrary, I would suggest that the hypothesis that a 40,000t CA with a 7.5" inclined belt / 7" sloped deck is resilient against 18" or heavier guns by virtue of its armor scheme is seriously flawed.
Is this using a Q(-1) gun? It appears that 18" Q-1 guns cannot penetrate that armor scheme at 15000 yards, but Q0 or Q1 guns probably can. Nevertheless, I am seeing similar(~37 hits) results testing in game, even with no citadel penetrations, so that's interesting. I guess I expected the ability to hold shells out of the engine room to have a bit more of an effect on durability  |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 21, 2021 22:15:52 GMT -6
Q0.
Edit: Also, be aware that armor penetration in the game is subject to statistical variation around the specified value, and that penetration tables are usually drawn up to answer the question "what is the maximum thickness of armor which I have a reasonably high probability of defeating," not "what is the maximum thickness of armor which I have any possibility of defeating." Immunity zones, both historically and within the game, are regions within which the armor has a reasonably high likelihood of resisting the gun+shell against which the zone was calculated, not regions within which the armor is absolutely impenetrable to a given gun+shell combination, and you can be a far cry from invulnerable to a gun+shell against which you are immune - especially near the edges of an immunity zone.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Apr 21, 2021 23:20:26 GMT -6
Q0.
Edit: Also, be aware that armor penetration in the game is subject to statistical variation around the specified value, and that penetration tables are usually drawn up to answer the question "what is the maximum thickness of armor which I have a reasonably high probability of defeating," not "what is the maximum thickness of armor which I have any possibility of defeating." Immunity zones, both historically and within the game, are regions within which the armor has a reasonably high likelihood of resisting the gun+shell against which the zone was calculated, not regions within which the armor is absolutely impenetrable to a given gun+shell combination, and you can be a far cry from invulnerable to a gun+shell against which you are immune - especially near the edges of an immunity zone.
Ahh, okay, makes sense. And yeah, I've noticed the variance in the shell pen. Thanks for the responses and for running that sim |
|
