|
Post by williammiller on Jun 25, 2022 15:47:12 GMT -6
I would (very much) like to add additional/more detail to the radars as that is sorta one of my...well, 'pet areas'/area of expertise, but if so that would happen with an update to RTW3 sometime after release.
|
|
|
Post by benjamin1992perry on Jun 26, 2022 6:52:59 GMT -6
This may be too late but one feature that would be nice is the ability when designing a ship is to choose the caliber of the guns as in 16"/45 or 16"50 depending on what you have unlocked and the weight you have available, or even the ability to design a large cruise like the Alaska class, a ship with 12" gun but cruiser protection.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 26, 2022 9:08:51 GMT -6
even the ability to design a large cruise like the Alaska class, a ship with 12" gun but cruiser protection. You can already do this in RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jun 26, 2022 10:47:00 GMT -6
even the ability to design a large cruise like the Alaska class, a ship with 12" gun but cruiser protection. You can already do this in RTW2. Yes, you can but it will be classified as a BC, not a CA/CB
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 26, 2022 17:10:16 GMT -6
You can already do this in RTW2. Yes, you can but it will be classified as a BC, not a CA/CB You would have to ask Fredrik to be sure, but I rather suspect that you'd have more success arguing for the game's battlecruiser templates to be modified to show a dying-off of First World War-style battlecruisers in the 1920s and then an emergence of 'large cruiser'-style battlecruisers in the mid- to late-'30s or the '40s than you would arguing for the inclusion of an entire new ship category, especially since past arguments in this direction have mostly seemed to be something along the lines of "my big expensive battlecruiser-adjecent warship modeled on a historical battlecruiser-adjacent warship which was built in a period where there aren't any modern/near-contemporary 'conventional' battlecruisers and is far too expensive to be a realistic cruiser replacement isn't worth building unless the game protects it from 'conventional' battlecruisers."
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jun 26, 2022 21:08:48 GMT -6
Yes, you can but it will be classified as a BC, not a CA/CB You would have to ask Fredrik to be sure, but I rather suspect that you'd have more success arguing for the game's battlecruiser templates to be modified to show a dying-off of First World War-style battlecruisers in the 1920s and then an emergence of 'large cruiser'-style battlecruisers in the mid- to late-'30s or the '40s than you would arguing for the inclusion of an entire new ship category, especially since past arguments in this direction have mostly seemed to be something along the lines of "my big expensive battlecruiser-adjecent warship modeled on a historical battlecruiser-adjacent warship which was built in a period where there aren't any modern/near-contemporary 'conventional' battlecruisers and is far too expensive to be a realistic cruiser replacement isn't worth building unless the game protects it from 'conventional' battlecruisers."
The only argument against the Alaska-class being Battlecruisers is 'they don't have capital ship defences', which turns out to mean 'they don't have high-level torpedo protection'. In terms of role and design emphasis, they are indeed Battlecruisers, built with the ability to 'out-gun anything that can out-run them and out-run anything that can out-gun them'.
|
|
|
Post by benjamin1992perry on Jun 26, 2022 23:15:44 GMT -6
also depends on how you define a battlecruiser, by WW1 standards yes the Alaska class could be considered a BC but by WW2 standards she was heavily lacking in the gun department. Most other battlecruisers had the same nnumber or slightly less of the same gun as the current battleship when they were constructed which for the Alaska would have either have been 16"/45 or 16"/50. Also combine with her hull form and general design being more in keeping with a cruiser. Also far as speed they fail in that catagory as well if you consider the Iowa as the current battleship when they were launched.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 27, 2022 0:22:34 GMT -6
Alaska's are an outgrowth of Heavy Cruisers much like the original Battlecruisers, they are themselves however not battlecruisers compared to then modern capital ships lacking both artillery, size, and torpedo defense systems. They were also built under cruiser budget rather than capital ship budget.
More egregious is the CA classification which works well... until heavy cruisers are invented.
|
|
|
Post by asdfzxc922 on Jun 27, 2022 12:52:01 GMT -6
Alaska's are an outgrowth of Heavy Cruisers much like the original Battlecruisers, they are themselves however not battlecruisers compared to then modern capital ships lacking both artillery, size, and torpedo defense systems. They were also built under cruiser budget rather than capital ship budget. Of all the battlecruisers ever completed, only Hood had anything approaching a battleship-sized broadside and an effective TPS. Aside from the Alaskas, the following classes were significantly smaller than contemporary battleships: Invincible, Indefatigable, Kongō, Derfflinger, Courageous, and Mackensen/Ersatz Yorck. I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence. Certainly their budget was closer to that of a treaty battleship than that of a CA.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 27, 2022 13:59:32 GMT -6
The answer to "What is a battlecruiser" is yes. And no. And "Can you be more or less specific?" A battlecruiser is naval porn. People hate it, love it, argue about it, get excited by it, can't define it but know it when they see it (and like porn it cannot be legally sent via US Mail). Given that SMS Goeben was a battlecruiser in 1914, is the Yavuz of 1950, worn out and barely able to make 24 knots, still a battlecruiser? Show your work in the margin. asdfzxc922 - no, all of the Dreadnought and WW1-era battlecruisers had armament comparable to capital ships of the time. Typically they had one less turret or guns of a slightly smaller caliber but the armament was all capital-ship-sized for their time. Dreadnought displaced 18k+ long tons, Invincible 17k+ long tons, which is no great difference. All of the Lion class were as big or bigger than contemporary BBs, and the Kongos were certainly larger (Iron Duke, 25k long tons and Kongo 27k long tons, Lion 26.2k long tons). Seydlitz displaced 24.5k long tons and Konig 25.3 long tons... no real difference. Renown displaced 27.5k long tons, the R class battleships 29k long tons... again, no large difference. It is later, with Hood, that the Royal Navy chose the third path to building a fast capital ship (1 - reduce the armament by one turret or one inch, 2 - reduce the armor, 3 - increase the displacement) and built the largest warship in the world (Hood 46.7k long tons, QE class 32.6k long tons, Tennessee 32.3k long tons, Nagato 32.2 long tons). The Alaskas were built with heavy-cruiser armor and armor schemes and were intended to be operated as cruisers and not as capital ships. I believe he means the Alaskas were built with funds appropriated for cruisers and not with funds appropriated for capital ships, which would be entirely reasonable. Despite the very, very good performance of their 12" gun, the Alaska class were always cruisers and not capital ships.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 27, 2022 16:27:47 GMT -6
Aside from the Alaskas, the following classes were significantly smaller than contemporary battleships: Invincible, Indefatigable, Kongō, Derfflinger, Courageous, and Mackensen/Ersatz Yorck. Were they? Invincible is 40' longer and just ~300 tons (~1.5%) smaller than Dreadnought by deep load displacement, at least according to Wikipedia's figures, and going by date laid down I'd argue that the Derfflingers and Mackensens are larger in both length and displacement than the corresponding most nearly contemporary German battleships (the Konigs for the Derfflingers and the Bayerns for the Mackensens)1; the Indefatigables and Kongos, meanwhile, are larger by length though not by displacement than the most nearly contemporary battleships of their respective navies, and it's at least debatable whether the ~2,000 tons difference between Kongo and Fuso is a particularly significant disparity in size when we're talking about ships displacing in the neighborhood of 28,000 tons. Courageous, meanwhile, is a battlecruiser more or less only insofar as there isn't a better non-unique period classification for it.
1Derfflinger was laid down in March 1912, ~6 months after Konig and ~21 months prior to Bayern. Mackensen was laid down in January 1915, ~13 months after Bayern; as far as I am aware, no later German battleship made it off the drawing board until Scharnhorst, but even if construction of a battleship to one of the L 20 designs did manage to get under way before the end of the First World War it seems unlikely that construction could have begun any sooner than very late 1917, 20+ months after Mackensen. Alaska is very definitely not a battleship. Whether or not it is a capital ship is rather more arguable, especially since pretty much every other big gun warship in its weight class is a capital ship.
Also, the only formal definition of 'capital ship' that I'm aware of is the one from the Treaties, i.e. a warship displacing more than 10,000 tons or armed with guns heavier than 8" which is not primarily designed for the operation of aircraft, and Alaska checks all those boxes. Even if you expand the Treaty definition to exclude large post-Treaty gun cruisers like Des Moines and the missile cruisers that started appearing in the 1950s, something like an Alaska is probably at worst a second- or third-class capital ship for the simple reason that even the big navies can't afford to replace their cruisers with things like the Alaskas while anyone outside the top two or three navies that has something like an Alaska probably doesn't have anything else above, in, or even approaching the same weight class.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 27, 2022 17:37:06 GMT -6
Wow...this is a debate subject that is older than I am...
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 27, 2022 18:39:36 GMT -6
Wow...this is a debate subject that is older than I am... It was probably a debate in 1944...
|
|
|
Post by asdfzxc922 on Jun 27, 2022 20:09:01 GMT -6
asdfzxc922 - no, all of the Dreadnought and WW1-era battlecruisers had armament comparable to capital ships of the time. Typically they had one less turret or guns of a slightly smaller caliber but the armament was all capital-ship-sized for their time. Because a large part of their mission was to engage other battlecruisers or pseudo-BCs. For the Alaskas, that meant they'd probably fight Dunkerque, Deutschland and/or the mythical Japanese 6x12" cruiser. Also, Courageous. Dreadnought displaced 18k+ long tons, Invincible 17k+ long tons, which is no great difference. All of the Lion class were as big or bigger than contemporary BBs, and the Kongos were certainly larger (Iron Duke, 25k long tons and Kongo 27k long tons, Lion 26.2k long tons). Seydlitz displaced 24.5k long tons and Konig 25.3 long tons... no real difference. Renown displaced 27.5k long tons, the R class battleships 29k long tons... again, no large difference. My bad on the Invincibles, I remembered them being closer to 15k for some reason. Kongō was a good 3000 tons smaller than the contemorary Fusō class. Trying to compare foreign ships like this is rarely a good idea. Please don't make me talk about Dunkerque. I didn't bring up all those other classes because they're irrelevant to the point. I never claimed that all battlecruisers are smaller than battleships, I'm saying that simply being small isn't enough to disqualify a class from being a battlecruiser. The Alaskas were built with heavy-cruiser armor and armor schemes Firstly, 9" belt and 4" deck is a hell of a lot more than any CA I've ever heard of. Secondly, the Alaskas had more armor than the Lexingtons, Kongōs, Amagis, or any British BCs up to Hood, so I really don't get why people keep bringing up their "lack" of armor as if it somehow disqualifies them. And what does "cruiser armor scheme" even mean? and were intended to be operated as cruisers and not as capital ships. Their primary job was to hunt down and kill other cruisers, same as any other BC. Only the Germans actually expected their battlecruisers to fight battleships on a regular basis (Hood and the G3s could, but that was more of a happy accident). Also, Courageous. I believe he means the Alaskas were built with funds appropriated for cruisers and not with funds appropriated for capital ships, which would be entirely reasonable. The USN didn't have a general cruiser budget, funding was authorized class-by-class.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 27, 2022 21:00:37 GMT -6
asdfzxc922 - no, all of the Dreadnought and WW1-era battlecruisers had armament comparable to capital ships of the time. Typically they had one less turret or guns of a slightly smaller caliber but the armament was all capital-ship-sized for their time. Because a large part of their mission was to engage other battlecruisers or pseudo-BCs. For the Alaskas, that meant they'd probably fight Dunkerque, Deutschland and/or the mythical Japanese 6x12" cruiser. Also, Courageous. Dreadnought displaced 18k+ long tons, Invincible 17k+ long tons, which is no great difference. All of the Lion class were as big or bigger than contemporary BBs, and the Kongos were certainly larger (Iron Duke, 25k long tons and Kongo 27k long tons, Lion 26.2k long tons). Seydlitz displaced 24.5k long tons and Konig 25.3 long tons... no real difference. Renown displaced 27.5k long tons, the R class battleships 29k long tons... again, no large difference. My bad on the Invincibles, I remembered them being closer to 15k for some reason. Kongō was a good 3000 tons smaller than the contemorary Fusō class. Trying to compare foreign ships like this is rarely a good idea. Please don't make me talk about Dunkerque. I didn't bring up all those other classes because they're irrelevant to the point. I never claimed that all battlecruisers are smaller than battleships, I'm saying that simply being small isn't enough to disqualify a class from being a battlecruiser. The Alaskas were built with heavy-cruiser armor and armor schemes Firstly, 9" belt and 4" deck is a hell of a lot more than any CA I've ever heard of. Secondly, the Alaskas had more armor than the Lexingtons, Kongōs, Amagis, or any British BCs up to Hood, so I really don't get why people keep bringing up their "lack" of armor as if it somehow disqualifies them. And what does "cruiser armor scheme" even mean? and were intended to be operated as cruisers and not as capital ships. Their primary job was to hunt down and kill other cruisers, same as any other BC. Only the Germans actually expected their battlecruisers to fight battleships on a regular basis (Hood and the G3s could, but that was more of a happy accident). Also, Courageous. I believe he means the Alaskas were built with funds appropriated for cruisers and not with funds appropriated for capital ships, which would be entirely reasonable. The USN didn't have a general cruiser budget, funding was authorized class-by-class. Dunkerque is a full battleship, full stop, particularly Strasbourg; in any event a totally different weight class to the Deutschland class cruisers. The funny thing about German Battlecruisers was that they were called Großer Kreuzers, or Large Cruisers, abusing that definition that makes Alaska a battlecruiser and Hood a Large Cruiser.
|
|