|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 3, 2021 14:42:39 GMT -6
I started a 1900 German game and I have manually designed my own ships. My first was an attempt to reproduce the Kaiser Friedrich III class of battleships. I could not duplicate the armor of 12 inches and maintain a speed of at least 18 knots. So here is what I did. I checked the penetration of the main guns and made the armor belt able to resist that gun. Here is what I have. But it does not make sense because if I change the armor thickness, the data on guns changes also. However, it would seem to me, that this ship's armor can resist the penetration of a 9 inch gun. Have I missed something? Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Nov 3, 2021 15:20:05 GMT -6
Couple of things to consider if you are aiming to duplicate the ship as closely as possible. I think the armor belt should be narrow - per wikipedia: "They were the last German capital ships to use the old-style narrow armor belt arrangement; older compound armor required a significant amount of steel to resist large-caliber shellfire, which meant that little of the ship could be covered with armor owing to its weight. Krupp's new steel was much stronger, but the design staff did not take advantage of the reduced weight to provide more comprehensive protection, which would arrive with the subsequent Wittelsbach class." I think BE was closer to 3" on the actual ships - I'm really not sure but I think I see a 3" above the rudder in the image at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kaiser_Friedrich_III_linedrawing.png. In game terms I would test 3" of BE and see what that nets you in added Belt armor. The 3.45" tertiary guns I would make 3" or 2" as compromise with the 1.5" quadary battery - game presupposes a pretty hefty amount of 2ndary and tertiary battery rounds and the real ships may have had significant weight savings here. Also, just to see what the caliber reduction nets in belt armor. Transiting to a game-play comment. The historical low armor quality of the 1900 designs is somewhat reflected in a mechanic in which any given hit has a potential (roughly) 20% increase in shell penetration or a (roughly) 20% decrease in armor thickness. I don't recall off the top of my head which value is impacted by the 20%, but one of them is. The mechanic stays in force through the entire game. I think their is some calculation impact if shell diameter is sufficiently over armor thickness (I believe the actual term is overmatch - ruhrpottpatriot.tumblr.com/post/73235077911/crash-course-tank-armour-overmatching-and-why-some). So you may get random penetrations if armor has the random 20%... 80% of 6" = 4.8" of effective armor. If the shells get the 20% boost than you are looking at around 5.6" of penetration.
I would personally shoot for about 9" min. of belt armor given the impending AP shell developments, and it is likely going up against 11-12" gun B's and their might be a shell overmatch calculation built in; but that's just me...
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 3, 2021 15:35:06 GMT -6
I would also be inclined to use short range to model the Kaiser Friedrick IIIs as the ~3400nmi at 10 knots which Wikipedia gives as their range is very much on the low end for contemporary battleships.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 3, 2021 15:47:54 GMT -6
Couple of things to consider if you are aiming to duplicate the ship as closely as possible. I think the armor belt should be narrow - per wikipedia: "They were the last German capital ships to use the old-style narrow armor belt arrangement; older compound armor required a significant amount of steel to resist large-caliber shellfire, which meant that little of the ship could be covered with armor owing to its weight. Krupp's new steel was much stronger, but the design staff did not take advantage of the reduced weight to provide more comprehensive protection, which would arrive with the subsequent Wittelsbach class." I think BE was closer to 3" on the actual ships - I'm really not sure but I think I see a 3" above the rudder in the image at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kaiser_Friedrich_III_linedrawing.png. In game terms I would test 3" of BE and see what that nets you in added Belt armor. The 3.45" tertiary guns I would make 3" or 2" as compromise with the 1.5" quadary battery - game presupposes a pretty hefty amount of 2ndary and tertiary battery rounds and the real ships may have had significant weight savings here. Also, just to see what the caliber reduction nets in belt armor. Transiting to a game-play comment. The historical low armor quality of the 1900 designs is somewhat reflected in a mechanic in which any given hit has a potential (roughly) 20% increase in shell penetration or a (roughly) 20% decrease in armor thickness. I don't recall off the top of my head which value is impacted by the 20%, but one of them is. The mechanic stays in force through the entire game. I think their is some calculation impact if shell diameter is sufficiently over armor thickness (I believe the actual term is overmatch - ruhrpottpatriot.tumblr.com/post/73235077911/crash-course-tank-armour-overmatching-and-why-some). So you may get random penetrations if armor has the random 20%... 80% of 6" = 4.8" of effective armor. If the shells get the 20% boost than you are looking at around 5.6" of penetration.
I would personally shoot for about 9" min. of belt armor given the impending AP shell developments, and it is likely going up against 11-12" gun B's and their might be a shell overmatch calculation built in; but that's just me... I will look into that idea of a narrow belt. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 3, 2021 15:48:40 GMT -6
I would also be inclined to use short range to model the Kaiser Friedrick IIIs as the ~3400nmi at 10 knots which Wikipedia gives as their range is very much on the low end for contemporary battleships. I wasn't sure if short in the game would model the Kaiser Friedrich III actual range. This helps.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 3, 2021 15:56:53 GMT -6
Based on the two ideas above: short range and narrow belt, here is the result of modifying the Kaiser Friedrich III design. Unfortunately the AI said it was now an armored cruiser so I going with that. What do you think? I gained two knots of speed. I also added another inch of belt armor.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Nov 4, 2021 0:27:15 GMT -6
Transiting to a game-play comment. The historical low armor quality of the 1900 designs is somewhat reflected in a mechanic in which any given hit has a potential (roughly) 20% increase in shell penetration or a (roughly) 20% decrease in armor thickness. I don't recall off the top of my head which value is impacted by the 20%, but one of them is. The mechanic stays in force through the entire game. I think their is some calculation impact if shell diameter is sufficiently over armor thickness (I believe the actual term is overmatch - ruhrpottpatriot.tumblr.com/post/73235077911/crash-course-tank-armour-overmatching-and-why-some). So you may get random penetrations if armor has the random 20%... 80% of 6" = 4.8" of effective armor. If the shells get the 20% boost than you are looking at around 5.6" of penetration. The +20% penetration mechanic is there to simulate armour (most noticeably belt armour) getting thinner (tapering) as it approaches the end of the belt. If memory serves, there is also -20% penetration mechanic representing the shell not hitting the belt at a perfect 90 degree angle. Nothing to do with low armour quality.
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Nov 4, 2021 1:25:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 4, 2021 7:27:47 GMT -6
Interesting designs. I prefer less armor and a bit more speed for safety. However, that is just my preferences.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Nov 4, 2021 9:04:19 GMT -6
Transiting to a game-play comment. The historical low armor quality of the 1900 designs is somewhat reflected in a mechanic in which any given hit has a potential (roughly) 20% increase in shell penetration or a (roughly) 20% decrease in armor thickness. I don't recall off the top of my head which value is impacted by the 20%, but one of them is. The mechanic stays in force through the entire game. I think their is some calculation impact if shell diameter is sufficiently over armor thickness (I believe the actual term is overmatch - ruhrpottpatriot.tumblr.com/post/73235077911/crash-course-tank-armour-overmatching-and-why-some). So you may get random penetrations if armor has the random 20%... 80% of 6" = 4.8" of effective armor. If the shells get the 20% boost than you are looking at around 5.6" of penetration. The +20% penetration mechanic is there to simulate armour (most noticeably belt armour) getting thinner (tapering) as it approaches the end of the belt. If memory serves, there is also -20% penetration mechanic representing the shell not hitting the belt at a perfect 90 degree angle. Nothing to do with low armour quality.
I thought I noted that the +20% mechanic stays in force through the game, and that the low armor quality of the 1900 designs is somewhat reflected in a a mechanic... I apologize for not better conveying what I meant...
I was trying to convey your post at: nws-online.proboards.com/post/73199/thread where you noted: "Quality of the armour - microscopic flaws and imperfections can easily affect the "true" strength of the armour in the impact zone." as being part of the 20% variance in penetration value.
The post heavily implies that it is only the shells penetration value that is impacted by 20%, can you confirm that the - / +20% values are for the shells penetration value and not applied to the armor value?
I was also trying to combine my statements with the 1.08 manual statement that: Armour thickness up to 20 in allowed, but an increase in armour over 12 inches will not give the same proportional protection due to difficulties in manufacturing thicker armor plates.
I suspect that the proportional protection % and or thickness varies based on technology (like Advanced alloying, Reduced impurities, Microphotography for armour breakage studies and Micro alloy additions (vanadium, boron, copper) - such that the proportional value might increase closer to 100%, or the drop off might not occur until 15" or something. Clearly, I don't know how everything works in the game and this is just a suspicion on my end.
Personally, I've found that the armor and penetration values changes too much in the background for me to maintain a reasonable expectation of penetration. Against stronger opponents with new armor the shells don't seem to penetrate as anticipated and against older ships the rounds seem to go though it like butter with a good number of pass-throughs. So I just toss a 10% modifier to what ever value I'm looking at based on any significant differences in age (if I'm trying to determine if I can pen a 10+ year old CA, I take 10% off of its armor value or I'll add 10% to penetration value to my guns) and it seems to temper my expectations to better match results...
Getting back to the CA / B designs. Would "speed" engines be appropriate here as well? I thought they introduced water tube boilers to the German fleet, from Wiki bolding by me: "The Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleships were powered by three 3-cylinder vertical triple-expansion steam engines that drove three screws. Kaiser Friedrich III, Kaiser Barbarossa, and Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse were equipped with three 3-bladed screws that were 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in) in diameter. Kaiser Karl der Grosse and Kaiser Wilhelm II were equipped with two of the 3-bladed screws on the outer shafts and a four-bladed screw that was 4.2 m (13 ft 9 in) in diameter on the center shaft. The ships received different boiler arrangements owing to concerns among the naval high command about the reliability of the new water-tube boilers. Kaiser Wilhelm II had an arrangement similar to Kaiser Friedrich III, except the Thornycroft boilers were replaced by Marine-type fire-tube boilers. Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse and Kaiser Karl der Grosse were equipped with four Marine and six cylindrical fire-tube boilers, while Kaiser Barbarossa had four Thornycroft and six cylindrical fire-tube boilers. All of the ships' boilers were ducted into two funnels, but Kaiser Friedrich III and Kaiser Wilhelm II had thinner aft funnels while those of the other three ships were identical."
|
|
|
Post by director on Nov 4, 2021 10:21:30 GMT -6
Well, it looks like an armored cruiser, moves like like an armored cruiser, fights like like an armored cruiser... so I think that's what it is, without regard to how they intended to use it.
German three-prop designs were very inefficient; their own research showed the center prop needed a lot of weight for engine and shaft yet added almost nothing to speed, for reasons of water-flow. Mostly they kept using the center prop in ship designs as a spare in case one of the outboard props was damaged.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Nov 4, 2021 10:22:06 GMT -6
The +20% penetration mechanic is there to simulate armour (most noticeably belt armour) getting thinner (tapering) as it approaches the end of the belt. If memory serves, there is also -20% penetration mechanic representing the shell not hitting the belt at a perfect 90 degree angle. Nothing to do with low armour quality. I thought I noted that the +20% mechanic stays in force through the game, and that the low armor quality of the 1900 designs is somewhat reflected in a a mechanic... I apologize for not better conveying what I meant... I was trying to convey your post at: nws-online.proboards.com/post/73199/thread where you noted: "Quality of the armour - microscopic flaws and imperfections can easily affect the "true" strength of the armour in the impact zone." as being part of the 20% variance in penetration value. The post heavily implies that it is only the shells penetration value that is impacted by 20%, can you confirm that the - / +20% values are for the shells penetration value and not applied to the armor value?
I was also trying to combine my statements with the 1.08 manual statement that: Armour thickness up to 20 in allowed, but an increase in armour over 12 inches will not give the same proportional protection due to difficulties in manufacturing thicker armor plates. I suspect that the proportional protection % and or thickness varies based on technology (like Advanced alloying, Reduced impurities, Microphotography for armour breakage studies and Micro alloy additions (vanadium, boron, copper) - such that the proportional value might increase closer to 100%, or the drop off might not occur until 15" or something. Clearly, I don't know how everything works in the game and this is just a suspicion on my end. Personally, I've found that the armor and penetration values changes too much in the background for me to maintain a reasonable expectation of penetration. Against stronger opponents with new armor the shells don't seem to penetrate as anticipated and against older ships the rounds seem to go though it like butter with a good number of pass-throughs. So I just toss a 10% modifier to what ever value I'm looking at based on any significant differences in age (if I'm trying to determine if I can pen a 10+ year old CA, I take 10% off of its armor value or I'll add 10% to penetration value to my guns) and it seems to temper my expectations to better match results... Hmm, I can't honestly remember which it applies to now - armour thickness or penetration. It would make more sense to apply to the armour thickness (or effective armour thickness). It's also possible that the internal quality of the armour does factor in to the roll but am very sure it's not the only factor. Either a 10" plate will count as anything from 8" to 12" thickness or a shell rated as 10" penetration will actually penetrate anything from 8" to 12" of armour depending on how the dice roll. Interestingly, this does make a small difference. If the effect applies to the penetration roll, then a shell rated at 10" penetration will - on a very lucky hit - penetrate 12" of armour. If it applies to the armour, that means 12" of armour on the worst possible roll counts as only 9.6" and would be more readily penetrated by a weapon rated at 10".
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 4, 2021 14:49:53 GMT -6
Well, it looks like an armored cruiser, moves like like an armored cruiser, fights like like an armored cruiser... so I think that's what it is, without regard to how they intended to use it. German three-prop designs were very inefficient; their own research showed the center prop needed a lot of weight for engine and shaft yet added almost nothing to speed, for reasons of water-flow. Mostly they kept using the center prop in ship designs as a spare in case one of the outboard props was damaged. "What's in a name" is my thought.
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Nov 5, 2021 3:08:26 GMT -6
You can always change the ship types in the save game. Just find the design and the ships in the fleet list and rebrand them. I do it quite often as the game thinks some historical "Fast Pre-Dreadnoughts" are CAs. I'd not bother but for the BGs foibles.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 5, 2021 7:01:54 GMT -6
You can always change the ship types in the save game. Just find the design and the ships in the fleet list and rebrand them. I do it quite often as the game thinks some historical "Fast Pre-Dreadnoughts" are CAs. I'd not bother but for the BGs foibles. I just did that to the Kaiser Friedrich III, but in the list of ships, it is still registered as an armored cruiser. I tried to edit the autosave file but it doesn't affect it.
|
|