|
|
Post by proconsul on Jul 13, 2021 7:00:30 GMT -6
I noticed that the program tends to build a disproportionate number of battlecruisers compared to what occurred historically. Battlecruisers were expensive and specialized ships built in far lower numbers than battleships. I would suggest to set the AI to build fewer BCs compared to battleships. I would also suggest to pay more attention to ship names in the legacy fleets and in the opponents' navies. For instance in the UK legacy fleet for 1920 battlecruisers are given names typical of CA instead than historical BC names (like Invincible, Inflexible, Indefatigable, Lion, Princess Royal etc).
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 13, 2021 9:08:24 GMT -6
In my experiments with a 1925 Japanese game, a 19,400 ton battleship was switched to a battle cruiser at 27 knots. I don't know if that is standard but it could be. I believe that the criteria for a battle cruiser should be an increase in speed along with a reduction in armor belt and deck. If you reduce the armor and increase the speed beyond a specific level, then it will be transitioned to a battle cruiser.
Update: If we want a set of specifications for a battle cruiser, here is my suggestion based upon historical evidence......... of a sort:
Firepower would be 11 inch guns or larger
Speed would be 27 knots or higher with oil fired turbines
Armor would be 8 inch belts and 2 inch or higher decks.
These specifications would have to be progressive over time as armor weight, engine power change, but that is adding more complication to the game. In fact, after a certain date, you could eliminate the ship type "battle cruiser".
|
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Jul 13, 2021 14:03:14 GMT -6
I suspect that the AI's love for BCs over BBs is due to game mechanics / how it defines a BC along with the effects of the researched technologies in a given game. In some of my games one country will just build BB's while others will build mostly BC's; usually though the ratio is decently split.
I know that when I build my ideal ship design it generally comes in as a BC rather than a BB at least until the late 40's. Like oldpop2000, a lot of my early BCs get redefined as BB in refits due to speed restrictions on what defines a BC.
|
|
|
|
Post by colprice on Jul 13, 2021 15:43:18 GMT -6
Early game as a minor power (Chin China, Japan), while I have a couple of BBs and an obsolescent group of Bs, the early BCs are proving their worth - by tipping the AI's evaluation (counting capital ships rather than tonnage) and in combat. I've 3 BCs and they seem to be allocated as a group. So I have a fast(ish) wing to the battlefleet, reasonably well armed, and - given the early BB gun penetrations, sufficiently armoured.
I do need to design carefully - the auto design want bigger guns & faster speed. If I manage 4-5 knots faster than the early BBs, 12-13" in 4x2 threats, I can get a useful ship.
Probably be obsolete by the 1920s, but re-engined with oil fired turbines, and modern fire control, would be a good match for the CAs. I'd like to reclassify them from BC to CA...
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 13, 2021 16:59:23 GMT -6
Just a quick one, I started a 1920 IJN game and designed a battlecruiser. It had 16 inch guns, 30 knots speed and 11.5 inch armor. It was a battlecruiser but in my opinion it was a super battleship. So I increased the armor to a 15 inch belt and yup, it was now considered a battleship. I went back to 12 inches, and it was a battlecruiser again. I eventually dropped the deck to 2 inches and increased the speed to 33 knots and lo and behold, I still had a battlecruiser. I took an armored Cruiser for the same game, and increased its speed to 23 knots, hull form would only allow that speed, changed to oil and I got a battle cruiser out of the design. I also bulged the ship. Now I am really confused. I also unchecked the Versailles Treaty box. I don't know what that did but I can make some guesses.   |
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Jul 14, 2021 7:57:38 GMT -6
I'd like to reclassify them from BC to CA... Same here.
Probably not going to happen given the lack of historical precedent; but from a a game-play perspective (ship selection for battle and formation setup) it would be very helpful...
|
|
|
|
Post by colprice on Jul 15, 2021 0:14:16 GMT -6
As the game time progresses, the AI designed CAs tend towards 9-12 10", 30kts and 4-5" armour which comes in around 17000t.
The early BC designs are 8x11" (or 12-13" depending on your research), 23kts and 5" armour at around 14000-16000t.
Rebuilding some 1st generation BCs to oil firing and increasing their speed & updating their 11" armament, the program wants to reclassify them as BB...
|
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Jul 29, 2021 4:49:44 GMT -6
I think the game AI, especially for the UK, tends to build fast battleships with reasonable armour that then get classified as battlecruisers because they only have 12-13" belt armour. The real life Iowa class battleships would be battlecruisers in game because of their 33 knot speed and 12" belt.
Perhaps from the mid-30s the game should make battlecruisers increasingly rare by making the classification of battleships wider to include fast ships, and only consider a ship a battlecruiser if it has thin belt (say less than 11").
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Aug 1, 2021 8:18:38 GMT -6
I think the game AI, especially for the UK, tends to build fast battleships with reasonable armour that then get classified as battlecruisers because they only have 12-13" belt armour. The real life Iowa class battleships would be battlecruisers in game because of their 33 knot speed and 12" belt. Perhaps from the mid-30s the game should make battlecruisers increasingly rare by making the classification of battleships wider to include fast ships, and only consider a ship a battlecruiser if it has thin belt (say less than 11"). A good suggestion, something along my own lines of thinking. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 1, 2021 9:06:59 GMT -6
I think the game AI, especially for the UK, tends to build fast battleships with reasonable armour that then get classified as battlecruisers because they only have 12-13" belt armour. The real life Iowa class battleships would be battlecruisers in game because of their 33 knot speed and 12" belt. Perhaps from the mid-30s the game should make battlecruisers increasingly rare by making the classification of battleships wider to include fast ships, and only consider a ship a battlecruiser if it has thin belt (say less than 11"). A good suggestion, something along my own lines of thinking. Thanks! I would ask "is this the direction that you want the game to go in"?. The path you are suggesting is the real history path, taken AFTER WW1. Without WW1 in the game, would the nations have taken the direction of making fast battleships and eliminating battle cruisers. Keep in mind that battle cruisers primary mission was as the eyes of the fleet, sort of the cavalry on water. Now, the aircraft carrier and aircraft replaced that mission due to better flexibility and range. However, if we want the game to be virtual and take its own path depending on how the player wishes to direct it, then I would not make the changes from battle cruiser to fast battleships in concrete. Smaller nations or smaller budgets might be able to use battle cruisers better. A-H would be one nation, possibly Italy. There are other nations in similar geographical and economical positions. It was the assessment of Jutland and post-war gunnery trials that changed the requirements for ships, economics also played a part. Would the nations have gone this direction without a Jutland style battle? Who knows. Just my thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Aug 2, 2021 9:28:13 GMT -6
I don't mind the game overbuilding BCs. Around the late 20s or early 30s I simply stop building BCs and switch to fast battleships. At that point I gladly allow the game to reclassify my existing BCs to BBs, even refitting those ships early to accelerate their conversion, which prevents these older and slower ships from being deployed in large cruiser battles against more modern BCs. With no BCs available, my fast battleships get deployed into large cruiser battles, which is bad news for the enemy BCs. This is kind of gaming the system, but you play the hand you're dealt. As long as the AI is willing to build these weak ships, I'm willing to put them under the sea.
Playing at Rear Admiral level, I find it relatively easy to protect those old converted BCs/BBs when they are deployed in battleship battles by placing them in a line behind, but close to the main line, where they are seldom targeted but can still contribute gunfire. As battleships, these converted BCs still retain their higher speed, which generally allows them to run away if threatened by superior, but slower, "real" battleships.
Personally, I'd rather see my battleship/battlecruiser strategy become defunct by programming the AI to build proper fast battleships to provide better opponents.
|
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Aug 2, 2021 12:52:53 GMT -6
A good suggestion, something along my own lines of thinking. Thanks! I would ask "is this the direction that you want the game to go in"?. The path you are suggesting is the real history path, taken AFTER WW1. Without WW1 in the game, would the nations have taken the direction of making fast battleships and eliminating battle cruisers. Keep in mind that battle cruisers primary mission was as the eyes of the fleet, sort of the cavalry on water. Now, the aircraft carrier and aircraft replaced that mission due to better flexibility and range. However, if we want the game to be virtual and take its own path depending on how the player wishes to direct it, then I would not make the changes from battle cruiser to fast battleships in concrete. Smaller nations or smaller budgets might be able to use battle cruisers better. A-H would be one nation, possibly Italy. There are other nations in similar geographical and economical positions. It was the assessment of Jutland and post-war gunnery trials that changed the requirements for ships, economics also played a part. Would the nations have gone this direction without a Jutland style battle? Who knows. Just my thoughts. I would second Oldpop's thoughts.
Light cruisers didn't get built to 10,000 tons until the WNT and then they were built as that was the maximum limit... The WNT pushed every signatory nation to build to the max limit even if it didn't suit their strategic needs at the time. The USA built the Alaska class which arguably is a CA or BC with 12" guns.
I personally think having ship classes be for intended roles / formation usage rather than a set of criteria that came from a general consensus among nations (Washington and London treaties) would best fit the "what if opportunities" of the game. Having wrote that, the ship designer code is heavily invested in the historical consensus defintions so I don't think the developers would want to re-code that much.
With coding limitations in mind, I think a case can be made for the BCs and BBs to be intermixed in terms of armor, speed, guns, displacement, etc - just as the Alaska's designation was CA or BC depending on who you asked. The NWS team seems to have taken this position with formations in the DLC - "UPDATE: "BB can now be added to BC-divisions" (There is no speed requirement. If they are too slow, you the player will only create problems for yourself  )". It will be interesting seeing what the actual ship classes mean going forward - are BCs still more likely to be put into battle, do BCs have higher operating costs than BBs or perhaps BBs carry higher prestige but don't offer anything different than a BC in battle... |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 2, 2021 17:50:50 GMT -6
I would ask "is this the direction that you want the game to go in"?. The path you are suggesting is the real history path, taken AFTER WW1. Without WW1 in the game, would the nations have taken the direction of making fast battleships and eliminating battle cruisers. Keep in mind that battle cruisers primary mission was as the eyes of the fleet, sort of the cavalry on water. Now, the aircraft carrier and aircraft replaced that mission due to better flexibility and range. However, if we want the game to be virtual and take its own path depending on how the player wishes to direct it, then I would not make the changes from battle cruiser to fast battleships in concrete. Smaller nations or smaller budgets might be able to use battle cruisers better. A-H would be one nation, possibly Italy. There are other nations in similar geographical and economical positions. It was the assessment of Jutland and post-war gunnery trials that changed the requirements for ships, economics also played a part. Would the nations have gone this direction without a Jutland style battle? Who knows. Just my thoughts. I would second Oldpop's thoughts.
Light cruisers didn't get built to 10,000 tons until the WNT and then they were built as that was the maximum limit... The WNT pushed every signatory nation to build to the max limit even if it didn't suit their strategic needs at the time. The USA built the Alaska class which arguably is a CA or BC with 12" guns.
I personally think having ship classes be for intended roles / formation usage rather than a set of criteria that came from a general consensus among nations (Washington and London treaties) would best fit the "what if opportunities" of the game. Having wrote that, the ship designer code is heavily invested in the historical consensus defintions so I don't think the developers would want to re-code that much.
With coding limitations in mind, I think a case can be made for the BCs and BBs to be intermixed in terms of armor, speed, guns, displacement, etc - just as the Alaska's designation was CA or BC depending on who you asked. The NWS team seems to have taken this position with formations in the DLC - "UPDATE: "BB can now be added to BC-divisions" (There is no speed requirement. If they are too slow, you the player will only create problems for yourself )". It will be interesting seeing what the actual ship classes mean going forward - are BCs still more likely to be put into battle, do BCs have higher operating costs than BBs or perhaps BBs carry higher prestige but don't offer anything different than a BC in battle... I guess the simplest way to put this... I like simple... is to put away our 20th century naval history books and just read D.K. Brown, Norman Friedman and other authors on designing warships... maybe even examine a map or two. Just a joke, relax. Strange for an amateur historian like me to say that....Ich. |
|
|
|
Post by jireland on Aug 4, 2021 18:26:36 GMT -6
I think the game AI, especially for the UK, tends to build fast battleships with reasonable armour that then get classified as battlecruisers because they only have 12-13" belt armour. The real life Iowa class battleships would be battlecruisers in game because of their 33 knot speed and 12" belt. On a vaguely related note, is there any documentation of exactly what the various differentiations between BC/BB in a particular year are? Is it belt armour? Is it gun size? Is it speed? Is it a variation of the three? I've built BCs in the 20s, and by time I've upgraded them in the 40s the game is asking me to reclass them as BBs. No changes to armour, guns or speed.
Cracking game this btw. I'm a big fan of spreadsheet games but this is something else haha. Great fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by forget83 on Aug 5, 2021 6:11:39 GMT -6
I think the game AI, especially for the UK, tends to build fast battleships with reasonable armour that then get classified as battlecruisers because they only have 12-13" belt armour. The real life Iowa class battleships would be battlecruisers in game because of their 33 knot speed and 12" belt. On a vaguely related note, is there any documentation of exactly what the various differentiations between BC/BB in a particular year are? Is it belt armour? Is it gun size? Is it speed? Is it a variation of the three? I've built BCs in the 20s, and by time I've upgraded them in the 40s the game is asking me to reclass them as BBs. No changes to armour, guns or speed.
Cracking game this btw. I'm a big fan of spreadsheet games but this is something else haha. Great fun.
For BC, It's about having 24-26+ knots speed at a maximum of 12in belt or speed to over 30kn if you want more belt amour. |
|
)". It will be interesting seeing what the actual ship classes mean going forward - are BCs still more likely to be put into battle, do BCs have higher operating costs than BBs or perhaps BBs carry higher prestige but don't offer anything different than a BC in battle...