|
Post by arminpfano on Aug 22, 2021 9:54:01 GMT -6
Am I the only one tricking with conversions, or is this a well known exploit? Could´nt find it by search in the forum, so I describe it briefly:
1) When planes and early CV technolgies are developed, build CAs solely designed for a soon CL/CVL conversion. You get nice, fast ships, with 1 or 2 TP, 16.000 ts for 34 planes, or about 35.000 ts for 100. Arm them with 1 x 7" and 16 - 24 x 1 x 6" second artillery, all those turrets armored to the max. This is because armor is cheaper than guns or anything else - you will scrap those weapons soon. The armor can be 2" only for belts and deck.
2) When they are commissioned, mothball them immediately. They are not fit for any fight.
3) As soon as the conversion technology is developed, take them, remove all those ridiculous weapons, and put a flight deck on them. The costs are neglegible. For the first CV conversion you will need those 8 x 8" guns, so you have only about 90 planes. Remove these guns asap afterwards, during a refit, and go to 100 planes.
4) As a result you will have carriers with the maximum of planes during a time, when others fool around with weak CVLs, carrying 20 aircraft or so. This is not a game changing factor, because the torpedo bomber are weak then, so these ships are not able to wipe out a fleet. But it feels nice to have a massive CAP and maybe some torped enemies as a bonus. The cost of those ships and rebuilds are about 150% of later carriers with the equivalent number of aircraft, but this surplus will buy you 5 - 10 years earlier building.
5) Have fun!
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Aug 22, 2021 11:11:34 GMT -6
I wouldn't do this personally, because it is, as you say, an exploit and I like to kind of roleplay my games. That being said, this is a single player game and if it fits your playstyle, hey, more power to you.
Note: I _do_ tend to build my first "real" heavy cruisers (as compared to the armored cruisers at game's start) at 16,000 tons and not with overly thick belt/deck armor, so I can convert them to CVLs later on, but I keep it in the realm of realism (4.5 to 5 belt and 2 deck armor).
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Aug 22, 2021 15:20:32 GMT -6
I wouldn't do this personally, because it is, as you say, an exploit and I like to kind of roleplay my games. That being said, this is a single player game and if it fits your playstyle, hey, more power to you. Note: I _do_ tend to build my first "real" heavy cruisers (as compared to the armored cruisers at game's start) at 16,000 tons and not with overly thick belt/deck armor, so I can convert them to CVLs later on, but I keep it in the realm of realism (4.5 to 5 belt and 2 deck armor). I tend to use and abuse my first proper CAs well into late 1930s instead of converting them. At 27 kts (plus/minus one) with the exact same armor profile as yours and with as many guns as I can fit for a reasonable price (say 8x8", sometimes 10x8"), they usually displace just over 14K tons and can still serve as very effective anti-raider TP or a BB screen once a couple generations of newer CAs become available. By the time they get scrapped, they will have seen 20-30 years of service without major rebuilds (fire control refits aside), much of it as a frontline workhorse. Perhaps only half of the ones originally built survive to be decommissioned. Something I noticed is that it's rather advantageous to convert early BBs (sometimes even semi-dreadnoughts if you ever end up building those) to CVs with a requisite engine rebuild. It is usually the case that early BBs start becoming dangerously obsolete by the time fleet CV conversion is unlocked, and at 25-30K tons they can make for a decent CV carrying 50 planes at 25 kts or so (just above the speed of my slowly aging second-generation BB line at that point). It's pricey but viable until such time when you get purpose-built CV tech.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Aug 22, 2021 23:08:53 GMT -6
With "my first real heavy cruisers", I'm talking about 16,000 ton, 24 knots, 12 x 9" guns (6 twin turrets in a hexagonal configuration), that I build as soon as medium_wing_turrets unlock because those absolutely _slaughter_ the AI's armored cruisers for the next 10 years or so. Those are, however, simply too slow to be of use at the time I can convert them to CVLs
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Aug 22, 2021 23:36:40 GMT -6
With "my first real heavy cruisers", I'm talking about 16,000 ton, 24 knots, 12 x 9" guns (6 twin turrets in a hexagonal configuration), that I build as soon as medium_wing_turrets unlock because those absolutely _slaughter_ the AI's armored cruisers for the next 10 years or so. Those are, however, simply too slow to be of use at the time I can convert them to CVLs I guess it goes on my list of desperate things to try in order to avoid wasting pre-WWI budget on things that will get scrapped all too soon.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Aug 23, 2021 10:51:48 GMT -6
It really depends on budgets and technology developments in game, along with what your opponents are doing.
Regarding step 3 - I think GB gets the CVL conversion tech (Flight Deck) as a bonus tech. Its nice to have them as friends at that time and have them do the rebuilds.
I tend towards a variant of the 16,000 ton CVL conversion, using Bs or CA. I will sometimes (about 50% of my games) convert my early coal BCs in the 22-32k tons to CVs. I think the BC to CV conversion tends to be a bit more economical from a battle performance standpoint. Early BCs provide decent gun fighting capability and blockade tonnage until the conversion. When they are converted they need an oil refit anyways and conversion to a flight deck doesn't require a ton more money.
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 23, 2021 14:47:58 GMT -6
The only gunship-to-carrier refits I do are in the period where that's all that I can do. Those aging hulls require very expensive machinery replacement and still can't carry as many aircraft and AA as a purpose-built carrier. So as fast as my purpose-built CVs come into service the old conversions go to the scrapyard.
I find it more economical to build carriers in the 60 to 90 aircraft range, with some thin armor protection and a lot of AA guns. Once I start building those my capital ship construction basically stops... currently in 1955 I have about 9 fast BBs (27 knots), three dating back to the late 1920s. My BCs have dropped caliber from 15" to 14" and the newest two will have 9x11" - cruiser killers only. But I have 9 CVs (all CVLs scrapped a decade back) with airgroups from 60 to 90.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Aug 23, 2021 15:19:04 GMT -6
Director, no argument from me that purpose built CV are better than conversion. Also, the OP noted that the conversions were still about 150% of new construction cost. I tend to play with Varied Tech. My last and current game have been slow AC development, I think the following could be true with slow AC development or a tech rate below 80%. Fleet size and nation also could make a difference. Last game as Japan through 1955, my gunships were more valuable and dealing more damage than my AC by a noticeable margin.
The battle generator was giving me a lot of fleet / carrier battles in the 40's in which nothing happened during the day. The AC just didn't have the range to hit the enemy, so actual engagements occurred at night. I think my fighters finally broke 300 mph in 1952 or 1953 and TB's finally got over 200 mile heavy load range in the mid or late 1940's. In this technology instance, the conversions were very useful through the end game. Current game is 1933 and as Italy I'm the only nation with a CV - a converted BC and I've just researched how to build purpose built CVs. No nation has DB and my TBs top out at 101 mile range with torpedoes... Its going to be another long night through the 1940s...
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Aug 23, 2021 22:16:12 GMT -6
The only gunship-to-carrier refits I do are in the period where that's all that I can do. Those aging hulls require very expensive machinery replacement and still can't carry as many aircraft and AA as a purpose-built carrier. So as fast as my purpose-built CVs come into service the old conversions go to the scrapyard. I find it more economical to build carriers in the 60 to 90 aircraft range, with some thin armor protection and a lot of AA guns. Once I start building those my capital ship construction basically stops... currently in 1955 I have about 9 fast BBs (27 knots), three dating back to the late 1920s. My BCs have dropped caliber from 15" to 14" and the newest two will have 9x11" - cruiser killers only. But I have 9 CVs (all CVLs scrapped a decade back) with airgroups from 60 to 90. Does it actually work for you? I'm asking because with all the night-time and bad-weather and close-range engagements that the battle generator likes so much, not having an overwhelming battle line really isn't an option for me even well into the '40s and even the '50s. With carriers being semi-controllable at best as they tend to be, how do you handle "fleet battle" style engagements, for instance?
|
|
|
Post by arminpfano on Aug 25, 2021 11:51:48 GMT -6
Something I noticed is that it's rather advantageous to convert early BBs (sometimes even semi-dreadnoughts if you ever end up building those) to CVs with a requisite engine rebuild. It is usually the case that early BBs start becoming dangerously obsolete by the time fleet CV conversion is unlocked, and at 25-30K tons they can make for a decent CV carrying 50 planes at 25 kts or so (just above the speed of my slowly aging second-generation BB line at that point). It's pricey but viable until such time when you get purpose-built CV tech.
I seriously disagree. Early BB don´t have any torpedo protection, and the engine rebuild to a useful speed is just too expensive. I really doubt they are worth this investment, with the possible exception of treaty situations.
Personally I would like the cost of the engine rebuilds reduced, to make it a real alternative to new ships. At the moment I never mind about rebuilds, besides plain flight deck installation. It doesn´t pay.
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Aug 25, 2021 13:35:04 GMT -6
I seriously disagree. Early BB don´t have any torpedo protection, and the engine rebuild to a useful speed is just too expensive. I really doubt they are worth this investment, with the possible exception of treaty situations. Personally I would like the cost of the engine rebuilds reduced, to make it a real alternative to new ships. At the moment I never mind about rebuilds, besides plain flight deck installation. It doesn´t pay.
I hear you. My normal policy is to never do engine rebuilds outside of treaties or special circumstances. However, consider that the alternative is to wait for dedicated CV tech, which can be rather a long wait. With conversions, not only can you get rid of the ludicrous 8x8" requirement for the first CV, but also get a distinct leg up over most other nations that are running CVLs at the time.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Aug 25, 2021 13:47:47 GMT -6
arminpfano, whats a useful speed? I don't recall seeing your thoughts at: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/5955/speed-cvl and I don't see them noted in the OP. I can't argue on the BB line as I generally use BC for my CV conversion, B and CA for CVL. Other than night time and weather limiting flight ops but not ship speed, I haven't seen carrier speeds being impactful. Might just be how I fight... But my carrier force never keeps up with the main battle line nor do I want it to. The patrol role seems to work to keep them in in a general non-surface-combat area, so I've been experimenting with that role to good affect. My issue is that carriers turn into the wind to launch and retrieve planes, which makes them virtually un-controllable with larger wings / high operational tempo. As such, with new build CVs I'm usually 26-29 knots (my low end is right above gurudennis "25 kts or so"); rebuilds of my early BCs with bulges end up in the 24-26 knot range (with gurudennis 25 knots right in the middle of my range). I think I've built a handful of early BCs at 27 knots with most ending up at 28-29 knots with bulging (cheap TPS and extra aircraft or AAA capability) then bringing it down to that 24-26 knot speed.
Put another way, my new CVs I try to keep within a few knots of most enemy CA speeds - night time / bad weather evasion needs and the screening DDs can force an opening of the range for the CVs to slip away into the night / rain squall. If the enemy CAs have more than say 3 or 4 knots on my CVs than I usually need to divert some CL or capital ships to screen or at least be in the general area as the CVs. I tend to treat converted CVs as being semi-expendable in that they get less escorts, are sent to secondary theaters and or go to RF or TP once the enemy has been sufficiently mauled; so for me there really isn't any reason to spend the monies chasing speed.
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Aug 25, 2021 14:07:44 GMT -6
To nimrod's point, I think rebuilding BC->CV in this manner is also valid. The reason I normally avoid this is because BCs happen to remain valuable in their own niche even when near-completely obsolete in comparison with new construction. I rarely build slow/undergunned early BCs, instead opting to wait for a few years until I can build at least 8x13" with TP1 at 26+ kts, though more commonly it ends up being 9x14"@27kts. This is in large part because early on speed is exorbitantly expensive while a decent BB at 22 kts is cheaper and deadly. Now, such a BC as I described above, though marginally late to the party can remain operationally useful for 30+ years with no major rebuilds. Hence my hesitation to sacrifice a ship like that on the altar of budding naval air power.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Aug 25, 2021 15:28:33 GMT -6
To nimrod's point, I think rebuilding BC->CV in this manner is also valid. The reason I normally avoid this is because BCs happen to remain valuable in their own niche even when near-completely obsolete in comparison with new construction. I rarely build slow/undergunned early BCs, instead opting to wait for a few years until I can build at least 8x13" with TP1 at 26+ kts, though more commonly it ends up being 9x14"@27kts. This is in large part because early on speed is exorbitantly expensive while a decent BB at 22 kts is cheaper and deadly. Now, such a BC as I described above, though marginally late to the party can remain operationally useful for 30+ years with no major rebuilds. Hence my hesitation to sacrifice a ship like that on the altar of budding naval air power. Agreed on the general plan and general ship specs - TP 1 with 6x14"@27 kts is the min for what I aim for.
What seems to happen in about 30% of my games is that I fail to get TP 1, 3 centerline turrets or superimposed X, better large caliber guns, etc in the late 1900's or early 1910s and high tensions across the board force me to build intern Bs or BCs in my home yards. I've always been happy to convert these in the mid 20s to a CV once they need a refit... If I don't convert them to a CV, generally war occurring with a year of the last ending, than they seem to end up as coal powered SAM carriers... I played way to aggressively in a game where three became coal powered SAM carriers (had three of them as Germany with build dates in 1909, 1911 and 1914 with coal power plants with 27 or 28 knot speeds)- nws-online.proboards.com/post/79159
A bit more of a more common example, especially playing a one or two sea zone country (Italy, Russia, etc.). If I've built three or so 30-31 knot 16" or 17" BCs than my TP1 or none, 27ish Knot BCs with 13" or 14" guns often don't have a real place in the battle lines. Raiding can be a bit touchy with them given the low TP due to the focused airpower in the Med or Baltic and there really isn't a good place to send them (no South East Asia with a ton of basing and no country has a home zone there). Conversion to a CV if done with an eye to budgets can often be done for significantly under 20K, usually around 18K (the 8" gun requirement on the first skews the numbers but I seem to see 12 months at around 1.2-1.4K per month pretty regularly). A second refit down the road to add AAA capabilities / get rid of the 8" guns if required is often necessary - but I usually don't have DP tech or HA FC until later anyways.
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Aug 25, 2021 17:43:42 GMT -6
Agreed on the general plan and general ship specs - TP 1 with 6x14"@27 kts is the min for what I aim for. What seems to happen in about 30% of my games is that I fail to get TP 1, 3 centerline turrets or superimposed X, better large caliber guns, etc in the late 1900's or early 1910s and high tensions across the board force me to build intern Bs or BCs in my home yards. I've always been happy to convert these in the mid 20s to a CV once they need a refit... If I don't convert them to a CV, generally war occurring with a year of the last ending, than they seem to end up as coal powered SAM carriers... I played way to aggressively in a game where three became coal powered SAM carriers (had three of them as Germany with build dates in 1909, 1911 and 1914 with coal power plants with 27 or 28 knot speeds)- nws-online.proboards.com/post/79159 View AttachmentA bit more of a more common example, especially playing a one or two sea zone country (Italy, Russia, etc.). If I've built three or so 30-31 knot 16" or 17" BCs than my TP1 or none, 27ish Knot BCs with 13" or 14" guns often don't have a real place in the battle lines. Raiding can be a bit touchy with them given the low TP due to the focused airpower in the Med or Baltic and there really isn't a good place to send them (no South East Asia with a ton of basing and no country has a home zone there). Conversion to a CV if done with an eye to budgets can often be done for significantly under 20K, usually around 18K (the 8" gun requirement on the first skews the numbers but I seem to see 12 months at around 1.2-1.4K per month pretty regularly). A second refit down the road to add AAA capabilities / get rid of the 8" guns if required is often necessary - but I usually don't have DP tech or HA FC until later anyways.
What a curious build this one! Clearly originally designed to kill armored cruisers one-on-one. Probably unparalleled as a raider or a surface TP before the WWI time frame. I might have opted to build a BB on the same budget instead (?). But the rebuild is what's really fascinating, what with the 3 SAMs. This gives me some food for thought. My normal approach is to build a compromise SAM DD, usually sacrificing some speed and a turret, the idea being that I can bring a lot of DDs to any fight and achieve SAM saturation that way. Now I'm thinking it may also be worth sacrificing a turret on some older ships (typical 12x14" BBs come to mind) to fit a couple of SAM mounts. This is probably only worth it if CVs provide the bulk of one's firepower and the battle line is marginally useful, like in director 's doctrine.
|
|