|
|
Post by Adseria on Aug 9, 2022 4:23:05 GMT -6
Is there any real advantage to mounting 4" guns on early CLs? I always tend to think it's better to use a smaller number of 6" for the extra penetration, so they can take on other cruisers, but the auto-design seems to prefer 4" and a few 5" cruisers. Is there a reason for this, or is it just the AI being dumb again?
While I'm at it, are there any advantages to having guns smaller than 10" on CAs, or 12" on Bs, other than the obvious weight and tech-related bonuses?
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 9, 2022 4:44:06 GMT -6
It depends on your tasks for that cruiser.
Raiding cruiser does not need large caliber, so more 4" could better, especially against early destroyers.
Scouting cruiser would prefer speed and sturdiness over heavy firepower.
Even fleet cruiser with large 5" guns could be better alternative than 6" cruiser as it would probably performed better against destroyers, especially early on.
Overall advantage is having cheaper ship.
You can do everything with large fast powerful 6" guns cruiser, however you will end with lower numbers or your cruiser force will be much more expensive.
In RTW1 I had one playthrough simulating real construction program related cruisers of Royal Navy and find out in 10s I have much more cruisers and they were not more expensive and ability to focus where I need them gives me very good awareness in battles because of my large cruiser force and quite usually I hunted enemy raiders 2:1 which gives me much higher advantage against enemy.
|
|
|
|
Post by arminpfano on Aug 9, 2022 4:53:20 GMT -6
In addition you can mount 4" guns on your rowboats, if the ship is damaged, and attack the enemy with a flotilla. 6" guns are too heavy for this, the boats would get too slow...
|
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Aug 9, 2022 21:36:04 GMT -6
Is there any real advantage to mounting 4" guns on early CLs? I always tend to think it's better to use a smaller number of 6" for the extra penetration, so they can take on other cruisers, but the auto-design seems to prefer 4" and a few 5" cruisers. Is there a reason for this, or is it just the AI being dumb again? While I'm at it, are there any advantages to having guns smaller than 10" on CAs, or 12" on Bs, other than the obvious weight and tech-related bonuses? I find early on 5" and 6" guns have a 'to hit' penalty against DDs due to their tiny size, so there's an additional reason. As for Bs and CAs, well once 'Medium Secondary Batteries' are unlocked you can fit a full primary armament of 8"-10" guns - all of which benefit from your Fire Control System. Usually I only bother with an all-8" CA such as this design:  with Bs getting 8" or 10" secondaries, but I could see the attraction in an all-10" main armament for a B with that tech. |
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 19, 2022 2:27:50 GMT -6
I like a 6" battery for a light cruiser, but if I get a 5" plus-one gun then I'll use that.
Also I like to build big 6"-gunned cruisers for fleet work and 5"-gunned cruisers for colonial service.
|
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Aug 26, 2022 9:35:56 GMT -6
Historically a lot of the early cruisers (1900s) have mixed batteries of 6" MA with assorted 3-5" SA and often 2" or 3" TA... This was largely to combat the threat from Torpedo craft which was much talked up at the time. The game leans into this with modifiers which is a nice touch. Once fire control and torpedo ranges improve though it is much more efficient to have a universal 5.9/6 inch battery (generally considered the largest calibre that could be hand loaded in sustained fire?)...
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Aug 26, 2022 17:45:19 GMT -6
Historically a lot of the early cruisers (1900s) have mixed batteries of 6" MA with assorted 3-5" SA and often 2" or 3" TA... This was largely to combat the threat from Torpedo craft which was much talked up at the time. The game leans into this with modifiers which is a nice touch. Once fire control and torpedo ranges improve though it is much more efficient to have a universal 5.9/6 inch battery (generally considered the largest calibre that could be hand loaded in sustained fire?)... Until semi-automatic and then automatic setups for turrets with integrated elevators became the norm there was quite some spread in the definition of the highes "light" calible. German (Kaiserliche Marine) doctrinal definition was "light" can be handled manually, "medium" needs machinery support (elevators, tackles, trolleys etc.) for the projectile even when projectile and charge are separate, and "heavy" needs machinery support for bot the projectile and the charges (plural).
On the lower end of the upper limit of "light" in this sense you had 5.5inch (14cm), which the RN appreciated as being capable of a higher ROF than 6in QF but practically equivalent gain in performance (range/power) over 4in. The IJN used 5.5in/14cm as their light cruiser calibre since their personnel were, on average, not able to achieve as high ROF with manually loaded 6in as "Western" navies. The RN went to turreted 6in guns after using the 5.5in guns on only five ships, two of which were confiscated export builds. The Germans considered 17cm guns as the highest manually loaded calibre but only used it as MA on the "Braunschweig" and "Deutschland" classes, going back to 15cm with the Nassau's.
Of course there is also the abomination of the 5.25in and the relatively widespread 4.7in/12cm, but those are subtypes to the 5in "class"...
Lateron the "light" definition got modified some and "light" guns were those using fixed ammunition of a weight suitable for true automatic fire. In theory this was 5inch and lower, in practice one could argue 100mm and lower (based on the practical experience with certain 5in and 4.5in gun/turret systems). |
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Aug 26, 2022 20:48:52 GMT -6
One place the uniform battery doesn't seem to work as well: hit-and-run convoy attacks. Based entirely on one war in one play-through, but what I saw was my all-5"/no-seconday destroyers continuing to target enemy DD/CLs, even from within the heart of the convoy, leaving the Transports somewhat unmolested. The ones with a couple 2-/3-in secondaries appeared to do more damage to the convoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Aug 27, 2022 23:47:10 GMT -6
One place the uniform battery doesn't seem to work as well: hit-and-run convoy attacks. Based entirely on one war in one play-through, but what I saw was my all-5"/no-seconday destroyers continuing to target enemy DD/CLs, even from within the heart of the convoy, leaving the Transports somewhat unmolested. The ones with a couple 2-/3-in secondaries appeared to do more damage to the convoy. Yes, that's true! I believe the MA will only engage one target but each side of the ships SA/TA can pick separate targets? |
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Aug 28, 2022 16:34:26 GMT -6
Yep, that's exactly what I saw.
|
|
euchrejack
Full Member
Don't feed the Trolls. They just get bigger and more numerous.
Posts: 139
|
Post by euchrejack on Aug 29, 2022 14:40:16 GMT -6
Hm, so my 6" main, 5" secondary setup is Supreme~
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 29, 2022 17:41:28 GMT -6
Hm, so my 6" main, 5" secondary setup is Supreme~ Depends on what you mean by "supreme." - 6"+4" is likely a better-rounded armament than 6"+5" for large parts of the game - 4" probably outperforms 5" against destroyers for the first decade or so of the game, and 4" guns both become DP-capable long before 5" guns and remain a competitive DP option all the way to the end of the game, especially for lighter warships. 4" guns are also lighter, gun-for-gun, than 5" guns (obviously), so you can fit more of them on the same hull or fit the same number on a smaller hull or do something else with the tonnage you save.
- A setup that includes a tertiary battery can engage up to five targets simultaneously (main + one for each half of the secondary battery + one for each half of the tertiary battery) while your dual-battery setup can only engage three. - A 6"+5"+4" setup could plausibly offer a higher weight-of-broadside than a 6"+5" setup, and if we're talking about relatively conventional protected cruiser-type CLs then at least some of the 8" CL configurations allowed in RTW2 could surpass both the 6"+5" and the 6"+5"+4" setups by the same metric. - A comparable CL design that lacks a secondary battery will likely be cheaper or better-protected and, at least in the period where relatively long-range engagements are practical but secondary fire control lags significantly behind main battery fire control, likely won't be that much worse-armed in practice outside of convoy attack scenarios.
|
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 30, 2022 9:50:18 GMT -6
i'v tried to use lesser-armed CLs a few times in the past to see if they'd be any good, but they never are - pictured below is essentially the only CL design i'v used since i bought RtW in 2015
they easily kill other CLs, and can take out a CA if you'v got a pair of them
they are perfect on Trade Protection in important seazones, as well as Foreign Stations. also make great fleet scouts that take care of themselves, but i personally never put CLs on AF
the ai NEVER builds an equivalent CL so their dominance is pretty much total
side note you can design and build this 8" design until the end of the game, but it can never exceed 8000t since anything bigger is immediately reclassified as a CA (even after you unlock bigger CLs)
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Aug 30, 2022 11:39:34 GMT -6
... the ai NEVER builds an equivalent CL so their dominance is pretty much total
...
The AI designs in RTW3...may...just...surprise...you. Might want to have your blueprints ready for some new designs...just in case...   |
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Aug 30, 2022 11:47:32 GMT -6
... the ai NEVER builds an equivalent CL so their dominance is pretty much total
...
The AI designs in RTW3...may...just...surprise...you. Might want to have your blueprints ready for some new designs...just in case... Will that be default AI designs or will AIs adapt to the player's construction like it was mentioned in the expansion catalog with BBs? |
|
