|
Post by nimrod on Nov 1, 2021 7:22:06 GMT -6
I'll throw my 2 cents in here - predominately mid to late CL game view as follows.
I usually stop building cheap ships with the advent of fuel oil. Cheap coal ships are more cheaply upgraded to oil (given how the math works out to about 25% of build cost, the cheaper the ship the cheaper it is to convert), such that Bs, CAs and early BCs are pretty good candidates for CVL / CV conversion... My cheap CLs generally end up staying coal due to the coal bunkers and end up going on FS, trade protection or raider duty through the mid game if I have an empire that needs cheap ships.
Early / cheap CLs don't seem to do a very good job replacing CAs (for me) - they lack the endurance to maintain top speed long enough to really full fill the longer legged CA role. However, once oil becomes available the functionality of the CL starts approaching the CA. Personally, on a cost basis I think that once 10K ton CLs become available the CA role is fairly obsolete (at least in regards to how the AI uses CAs).
Actual speed and 2ndary's, torps, etc. will vary based on tech and any in game tech quirks. In this game the forerunner to the Munchens was an all gun ship - had 31 knots (three triple 6" turrets) and no torps as I hadn't developed them for non-DDs in 1927. I'm actually running a game where it seems like I'm getting most of the engine and ship design / hull forms / weight saving techs. The design is generally extremely effective against anything but BBs and BCs; CAs are a bit dependent on AP / HE shell technologies on my end. The 6" are capable in this game of penetrating 4.74" at 7K yards and a bit over 4" at 8K yards, and in two night battles they tore apart at least 4 CAs with two loses to themselves (hit by torps and subsequently flooded).
As I have the speed / light weight techs, the new version (1939) has an extra knot and an extra TP rating given the prior losses to torps:
Basic design criteria, is offensive firepower (broadside weight and AAA), then speed (anti-DD duty and strike potential against out of position capital ships it is also very useful for scouting at night and subsequently hightailing it back to escort the capitals) and armor comes in as a very distant third place (max armor is rather limited in game for a CL). Ideally I would like about 4-4.5" of belt (the Cleveland had up to a 5" belt) with turrets at 5-6" (CL-55 had 6" barbettes), the other armor thicknesses are pretty good in my book. Usually when I compare a 10K CL vs a 12-15K (tonnage varies on tech) CA, the offensive firepower and speed come in about about the same but I'm paying too much of a premium for the armor on CA. The CAs also tend to get focused on by the enemy AI and thus tend to sink with far more regularity than my CLs which seem to only attract enemy DDs and AC. The CA (and even pocket BC) does get a significant gain of function though when SAMs enter the game, as they can maintain the trifecta (firepower, speed, armor) with long range AAA capability much easier than the tonnage and armor limited CL designs.
General role is general purpose, good escort, scout and capable against anything but a BB or BC in good weather conditions (the torps give a potent sting in close combat against them).
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 1, 2021 7:48:55 GMT -6
I'm not sure that taking Historical Designs is necessarily the best course if you are seeking to optimise your in-game performance. Historical choices had many drivers - political, monetary, geopolitical and even personal animus amongst Admirals and administrators.
I personally like to mimic history though and happily build ships that I know are sub-optimal if my game navy chose to, or even thought about, if the designs are of interest.
The battle generator is rather flawed on occasion as it is incapable (probably because with "Vanilla" style fleets is doesn't really have to much) of assessing the relative strength of ships within any particular class definition, so if you build "Historical" start fleets of any sort (I've done real-ish one for everyone's navies myself and there are several excellent versions for folk to download via the "mods" section.) you will find some unbalanced match ups happening.
As to sources, there are quite a lot of entirely adequate ones online for most ships these days. That said, I'm a book worm myself (and Librarian by profession) so I do like a good tome to rummage through. For interest (?) here is a selection of my own sources:
Jane's Fighting ships 1905/06 and 1919 (reproductions), 1942, 1953, 1959, 1968, 1974, 1979, 1984 (of increasing irrelevance until the next "Ironclads to Exocets"? comes out?)
Before the Battlecruiser - Aidan Dodson : excellent volume covering everyone's Armoured Cruisers in splendid detail and nicely illustrated too.
British Battleships (multi vols) by R.A.Burt : I own the 1889-1904 and WW1 books. Both excellent on design history and technical details.
Battleships of World War One by Antony Preston : a touch old now but nicely illustrated (with side and top views of nearly everything)
Battleships 1856-1919 and 1919-1977 by Antony Preston : Old "History of the world wars: specials" slim rather than comprehensive but chatty and nice pictures.
Cruisers of World War Two / Destroyers of World War Two by M.J.Whitley : two the excellent old "Arms and Armour Press" sequence. (he does a Battleships one as well)
Aircraft Carriers of the World 1914+ by Roger Chesneau : best single volume I've seen on the subject.
Submarines of World War Two by Erminio Bagnasco : very good comprehensive source.
British Cruisers of World War Two / British Battleships of World War Two by Raven and Roberts : Utterly comprehensive works.
Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1809-1945 by Hansgeorg Jentshura and Dieter Jung : Excellent work covering pretty much every they had, technical focus.
Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships (multiple volumes) : superb books, I'd probably suggest getting these first if you want broad coverage. The national sections are written by different authors though so the style can be variable.
Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War by LaCroix and Wells : Very excellent book on a slightly niche subject, which I notice is now ludicrously pricey!
The Hybrid Warship by Layman and McLaughlin : Good book on an odd subject, not really possible (yet) to build these in game but interesting.
Warrior to Dreadnought / The Grand Fleet / Nelson to Vanguard by D.K.Brown : Covers (principally RN but the Tech and process is near universal) Warship Design and Development from 1860 to 1945 - Really excellent books for an understanding of the technical process of designing warships and how the evolving technologies of this whole period impacted the contemporary choices being made through time.
Jutland, and analysis of the fighting by John Campbell : Splendid, and in published form I suspect unique, record of the combat. Tracks nearly all major hits/damage to major units at least and sheds much light on the consequences of design choices made in warship construction.
Austro-Hungarian Warships of World War I by Rene Gregor : Good little book, I've fond memories as this was my first purchase of a "proper" naval book (cough*cough late 70s?).
Warships of World War Two by Lenton and Colledge : comprehensive register of RN, bare bones technical details but some interesting little photos. The same series also turns up in part works (Cruisers of, Destroyers of...) and also has similar volumes on most other navies. I've got several but rarely consult them these days as I have better.
The Battleship Holiday by Robert Stern : Interesting book on the various design responses and paths taken and not due to the assorted treaties between the wars. Several interesting "Never-weres" from various navies.
French Armoured Cruisers 1887-1932 by John Jordan : Very excellent and beautifully illustrated book.
French Battleships of World War One by John Jordan : as above...
French Battleships, 1922–1956 by John Jordan : as above... a splendid new sequence that includes several others for those with a gallic focus.
German Warships 1815-1945 (two volumes) by Erich Groener et al : really good technical guides and well illustrated throughout.
A whole bunch of stuff by the excellent Norman Friedman... I've got his US Battleship and Cruiser design histories, his books on Naval Firepower and Naval Anti-Aircraft Gunnery and several others. The Design History books are really interesting for the design process and evolution (rather like the D.K.Brown books on the RN) and the Naval Firepower one is very good on the technical evolution of FC tech. Also he has "The British Battleship 1906 - 1945" which is very good.
The Kaiser's Battlefleet by Aidan Dodson : Superbly illustrated design history and technical guide... I'm eagerly awaiting his follow on on German Cruisers coming out any very soon!
and, as an inspiration to writing AARs (and naval alt-history in general) I'd suggest Hector C. Bywater's splendid "Great Pacific War: A History of the American-Japanese Campaign of 1931-33" a 1925 "What-if" of a American-Japanese war starting with a Japanese surprise attack and an attack on assorted US Pacific territories...who knew? (Read by Yamamoto and translated into Japanese for staff reading!). Bywater was a naval writer of the time (and spy obvs!) and it's written in a quite chatty and accessible style rather like the "Red Storm Rising" (or Hackett's "Third World War") of it's day.
There's loads more around obviously but that's most of my current bookshelf on the topic (won't mention the loft!)
Cheers Alan
First of all, thank you for the list of books. I am sure that it will provide all of us with good technical information for our designs. Now as to the issue of using historical designs for the game optimization, I think it is a good place to start. I use history for each country. Geopolitical guides ship requirements and hence ship design. For the British with many far away colonies and the Mediterranean, light cruisers were an absolute must and they were designed with that idea in mind. Germany is almost landlocked, so here design requirements were developed appropriately. Japan is an island, so her designs were more blue water as was the US designs. But I do agree, that once you design a ship based on an history, then begin to move away from that idea and adapt to the game and increases in technology. I understand you being a book worm, I am too. I have over 540 ebooks on Amazon and another fifty on book shelves in my room. The ebooks make it much easier for me to research and read. I am 74 years old, so my eyesight isn't as good. Anyway, stay with us and share some of your designs.
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Nov 1, 2021 8:08:29 GMT -6
Hi, Check out my attempt at an AAR : nws-online.proboards.com/thread/6004/search-quasi-realistic-rn-campaignThat one is RN but includes lots of my designs for everyone else. My mission is to try and get everyone building more nationally appropriate designs (as far as possible) and avoid the Vanilla game's tendency to have way too many Dreadnought/Gangut/Derfflinger clones cluttering the planet. I've been editing the "IDes" file to try and do this but it's a long road I've taken! Alan
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 1, 2021 15:06:07 GMT -6
I was examining the definitions of extended belt and deck. Now in the game one cannot be thicker than the other... that is a real sticking point for me. So here is my designs that attempt change the extended armour protection to gain some speed. The Yakumo is the original design - The Kasuga is the update - Note: I gained six knots of speed and still had long range. I did not have to change anything else. Extended belt is from the barbettes to the bow and stern of ship. There are no ammunition supplies in those areas.... theoretically.
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Nov 1, 2021 15:25:26 GMT -6
Now proceed to seeing these cruisers burned and sunk by light guns. I made the same mistake early on in my RtW experience
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 1, 2021 15:49:05 GMT -6
Now proceed to seeing these cruisers burned and sunk by light guns. I made the same mistake early on in my RtW experience Hmmm. Possibly, I will take that under advisement. Good thoughts, thanks. Update: I went back to the second design and added 1inch extended belt and deck armor. I only lost 1 knot of speed and I increased the guns to 9 inch. Good suggestion, I will follow that.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Nov 1, 2021 15:54:20 GMT -6
OldPop2000, The design should be safe from flash fires... However, my experience mimics maxnacemit comments... If damage control is isn't up to it, the lack of BE / DE armor can result in flooding / fires / other critical damage events more easily. Usually by the mid 1920's I feel that I have sufficient damage control tech to start playing with no BE / DE armor. You might be just fine in 1918 though, different countries have different obstacles / opponents; so I'm interested in how the ships fair.
Edited - glad you took maxnacemits comments to heart. I'm still interested in how they fair.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 1, 2021 16:42:21 GMT -6
OldPop2000, The design should be safe from flash fires... However, my experience mimics maxnacemit comments... If damage control is isn't up to it, the lack of BE / DE armor can result in flooding / fires / other critical damage events more easily. Usually by the mid 1920's I feel that I have sufficient damage control tech to start playing with no BE / DE armor. You might be just fine in 1918 though, different countries have different obstacles / opponents; so I'm interested in how the ships fair.
Edited - glad you took maxnacemits comments to heart. I'm still interested in how they fair.
thanks, I like good advise so I can play better. I can't build the ship I posted due to treaty limitations. But I will and I will post the results. ASAP i started another Japan game on my notebook, let the computer design my ships, then took the CA it design, and redesigned based on my specifications. Once it is built, I am going to run a fleet exercise with my design against the AI's design. I hope this will give me some interesting data.
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Nov 2, 2021 1:24:26 GMT -6
I make my ships with no BE/DE only if they're capital ships using the AoN armour scheme, which reduces BE/DE hit chances. Cruisers use sloped deck with BE = B(but no DE until the 1950s, where the rate of fire is so high ships need to be armoured boxes for HE protection).
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Nov 2, 2021 1:58:24 GMT -6
Pre AON I try and give all armoured ships some level of extended belt and deck coverage though I find early light cruisers with the protected scheme and TE engines can't make historical speeds at the best of times so I often skip it for them. (IRL was only a shallow curved splinter protection at ends) it's a pity the game won't let you just have half-inch thick sections...I often make the whole scheme "narrow" to save more weight.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 2, 2021 8:53:19 GMT -6
I designed a CA with my ideas and ran a fleet exercise against a similar design by the AI. I lost. I am not certain my design was bad or just my tactics. I am going to continue to test to get a better amount data.
Update: I 've redesigned the ship and increased the extended belt and deck to 2 inches, and lowered the range to medium and eliminated third series guns. I gained another knot of speed so she will do 28 knots. I hope this is an improvement.
Update: I ran another fleet exercise with the same two ships. Both ships were sunk but my ship had more hits. So, who knows. I believe that my new designs will work better..... hope springs eternal.
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Nov 2, 2021 9:23:47 GMT -6
Oh god. Why are you making predread-style CAs in 1918? I'd make a 6x10''/8x10'' ship without such a secbat.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 2, 2021 9:37:52 GMT -6
Oh god. Why are you making predread-style CAs in 1918? I'd make a 6x10''/8x10'' ship without such a secbat. I am just using the games that are active to test my designs. Generally I make much more powerful ships.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Nov 2, 2021 11:12:48 GMT -6
I make my ships with no BE/DE only if they're capital ships using the AoN armour scheme, which reduces BE/DE hit chances. Cruisers use sloped deck with BE = B(but no DE until the 1950s, where the rate of fire is so high ships need to be armoured boxes for HE protection).
I was attributing advances in damage control to what AON was doing. Thank you very much for the education!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 3, 2021 8:35:51 GMT -6
Here is another ship, a light cruiser Izumi based on the historical light cruisers of the Chatham class. It is as close as the game will allow. I use historical designs that are or were determined to be good designs, and executed their missions well. This is my reason for playing games, to try to understand history and duplicate the events.
|
|