|
Post by cwemyss on Jan 13, 2023 21:38:33 GMT -6
For the Alaska's, whose waterline length was 791.6 feet, the answer would be 37 knots. Actual speed was 33 knots or 38MPH. But your answer is closer if you use the fast battleship formula. In this case, the answer is 33.48 Knots.. There it is, incontrovertible proof the Alaska was a Battlecruiser. :-)
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jan 14, 2023 6:05:56 GMT -6
that's pretty late game, once i get a CV in service BBs are only around for battle generator purposes - i might build 1 new class of BBs after 1920 (when i get AON) and none after 1940-ish
by experimenting i mean i want to try a game where i build only B/BBs until 1920 because BCs don't seem to count towards your B/BB ship total, and if you build BCs early game instead of BBs the game won't let you retire old Bs no matter how old they are. a lot of my ship building choices are made to manipulate game limitations or the battle generator - i use BCs in the exact same role as Bs or BBs and consider them identical, but the game does not think so
Works earlier in the game, too. it might be because i stick with 2 main turrets the entire game? all i know is if i build a BC (earlier game) if i pump the belt armour up to 12.5" it magically turns into a BB so i'd have to check it out to see what it is that gets me that result
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jan 14, 2023 6:16:00 GMT -6
by experimenting i mean i want to try a game where i build only B/BBs until 1920 because BCs don't seem to count towards your B/BB ship total, and if you build BCs early game instead of BBs the game won't let you retire old Bs no matter how old they are. a lot of my ship building choices are made to manipulate game limitations or the battle generator - i use BCs in the exact same role as Bs or BBs and consider them identical, but the game does not think so
Lately I've been not building any Bs or BBs at all, so there isn't any penalty for trying to get rid of them. I start off with gold plated CAs, due to the battle generator as you've said. They are as expensive as a B, and can't stand up to them in a battle, but they show up in cruiser battles, and at 22kn are fast enough to decide if they will chase or run away from most things. I jump immediately to BCs using the same theory, I only build a couple of them per decade at the most but make sure to make them fast enough that I can pick my battles and even run down the enemy's previous generation of cruisers if they show up to a cruiser battle. And I still tend to get a blockade going because I make a lot of minimal cruisers. I originally meant them to be raiders, but they also have quite a lot of blockade weight versus their cost. The only problem with that is that they're pretty bad in battle. But the enemy doesn't chase them down as much as I thought as they would even though they are only 21kn. i tried the 100% BC route (i still build early Bs, though i'v tried the CA only thing quite a few times) but they auto-convert into BBs a few years later which messes up the force structure - in (admiral mode) battles the game always makes any BB you own the force leader so i end up with my older and weaker ships as the lead, while all my best ships are relegated to support
hopefully the force editor or whatever it's called in RtW3 lets me craft my fleet more - hopefully we'l see sooner than later!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 14, 2023 8:38:41 GMT -6
For the Alaska's, whose waterline length was 791.6 feet, the answer would be 37 knots. Actual speed was 33 knots or 38MPH. But your answer is closer if you use the fast battleship formula. In this case, the answer is 33.48 Knots.. There it is, incontrovertible proof the Alaska was a Battlecruiser. :-) I forgot to mention that those formulas came from the David Taylor Model Testing Basin in Maryland. They are not dart throws; they are actual tests of models. If you use the 1.19 figure against the USS Nimitz, it comes out about 37 knots. Her acknowledged speed is about 32 knots. Notice I said acknowledged speed because she can and has gone faster.
|
|
|
Post by linnet on Jan 14, 2023 10:00:02 GMT -6
I realise now that I was being stupid.Where it says ship class identified as BB,reclassify ship as BB I was thinking you had to press yes to carry on with the re-design,now I realise you can press no and keep the new design as a BC.Looking forward to the customisable ship divisions in RTW3. .
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jan 15, 2023 2:00:18 GMT -6
I think this is another area where the game shows it's roots as a World War One naval sim. Battlecruisers emerge as CA counters but become the default CA replacements, that's why the game builds SOO many of them, I play on ultra large (12) fleet Size mostly so you'd expect quite a few but I generally the larger navies having scores of them by latter teens. The game seems to construct counter to the player's fleet, so if you play as someone with a global navy (Britain/France especially but also USN) and build a lot of CAs for trade protection you'll see loads of enemy BCs turning up, usually far more than your own Battlecruiser force... This leads to rather a-historical fleets for, for example, a Germany that OFTEN has more BC than BB. Now this is a game, so I'd find that interesting as an occasional tactical choice (a la Jeune Evoke?) but it's a little illogical otherwise as I'd generally build a more balanced force myself. I think this sort of "Great war" thinking reaches into the later game too, with "Scouting Forces" of BCs being sent out ahead of your, by now carrier heavy main force, even deep into the age of air recon by the battle generator. Hopefully RTW 3 will allow more choice in battle deployments but maybe also a more subtle AI response to player construction?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 15, 2023 8:14:34 GMT -6
I think this is another area where the game shows it's roots as a World War One naval sim. Battlecruisers emerge as CA counters but become the default CA replacements, that's why the game builds SOO many of them, I play on ultra large (12) fleet Size mostly so you'd expect quite a few but I generally the larger navies having scores of them by latter teens. The game seems to construct counter to the player's fleet, so if you play as someone with a global navy (Britain/France especially but also USN) and build a lot of CAs for trade protection you'll see loads of enemy BCs turning up, usually far more than your own Battlecruiser force... This leads to rather a-historical fleets for, for example, a Germany that OFTEN has more BC than BB. Now this is a game, so I'd find that interesting as an occasional tactical choice (a la Jeune Evoke?) but it's a little illogical otherwise as I'd generally build a more balanced force myself. I think this sort of "Great war" thinking reaches into the later game too, with "Scouting Forces" of BCs being sent out ahead of your, by now carrier heavy main force, even deep into the age of air recon by the battle generator. Hopefully RTW 3 will allow more choice in battle deployments but maybe also a more subtle AI response to player construction? i think we have to remember this is a virtual historical game as you said an A-historical. Without Jutland, Washington and London Naval treaties and the depression of the 1930's, who knows where we would have been. I have some books on this subject. I will research this issue.
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jan 15, 2023 15:26:54 GMT -6
I think this is another area where the game shows it's roots as a World War One naval sim. Battlecruisers emerge as CA counters but become the default CA replacements, that's why the game builds SOO many of them, I play on ultra large (12) fleet Size mostly so you'd expect quite a few but I generally the larger navies having scores of them by latter teens. The game seems to construct counter to the player's fleet, so if you play as someone with a global navy (Britain/France especially but also USN) and build a lot of CAs for trade protection you'll see loads of enemy BCs turning up, usually far more than your own Battlecruiser force... This leads to rather a-historical fleets for, for example, a Germany that OFTEN has more BC than BB. Now this is a game, so I'd find that interesting as an occasional tactical choice (a la Jeune Evoke?) but it's a little illogical otherwise as I'd generally build a more balanced force myself. I think this sort of "Great war" thinking reaches into the later game too, with "Scouting Forces" of BCs being sent out ahead of your, by now carrier heavy main force, even deep into the age of air recon by the battle generator. Hopefully RTW 3 will allow more choice in battle deployments but maybe also a more subtle AI response to player construction? i think we have to remember this is a virtual historical game as you said an A-historical. Without Jutland, Washington and London Naval treaties and the depression of the 1930's, who knows where we would have been. I have some books on this subject. I will research this issue. I mostly play early games, generally bailing by the thirties, and thus I'm largely talking about pre-Washington era (and effectively pre-Jutland era construction) fleet compositions. See one my earlier efforts - nws-online.proboards.com/thread/6004/search-quasi-realistic-rn-campaign?page=1to see the early-mid teens BC swarms!
|
|
|
Post by rs2excelsior on Jan 23, 2023 22:20:50 GMT -6
Thank you,so if I build a 27 knot battleship in 1920 it would not appear in cruiser battles? I believe 27 knots is the cutoff for being considered a "fast battleship." The general recommendation is to go for a design speed of 28 knots so a ship that gets the trouble reaching design speed event still gets classed as an FBB. The exact cutoff is not made clear in the game, though, and could definitely be made more obvious.
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jan 24, 2023 6:53:12 GMT -6
Thank you,so if I build a 27 knot battleship in 1920 it would not appear in cruiser battles? I believe 27 knots is the cutoff for being considered a "fast battleship." The general recommendation is to go for a design speed of 28 knots so a ship that gets the trouble reaching design speed event still gets classed as an FBB. The exact cutoff is not made clear in the game, though, and could definitely be made more obvious. I'd like it to be something the player could define (other than by hacking the save file!) so they could occasionally see their faster Battleships turn up directly supporting their BCF... As was literally done at Jutland for example. It should be dependant on relative speed rather than a set figure maybe?
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Jan 24, 2023 22:33:38 GMT -6
This is the type of ship I'd like to see listed as a CA in the game after about 1925ish or so. A supercruiser for sure, but not a battlecruiser by any means.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jan 25, 2023 3:12:01 GMT -6
Why is the torpedo protection only level 2 on such an expensive ship?
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jan 25, 2023 3:16:42 GMT -6
Why is the torpedo protection only level 2 on such an expensive ship? Could be low research game or maybe choice? I don't give anything under 20k more than TP2 as I don't think it would really be possible to match the TDS fitted to later capital ships, these simply required too much beam. It's why the Alaska class would have been MUCH more vulnerable than an Iowa for example.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 25, 2023 9:47:41 GMT -6
Why is the torpedo protection only level 2 on such an expensive ship? If we divide the total weight of the armor by the total weight of the ship, the result is about 26.7 %. Based on my calculations from Springsharp, this is a pretty close answer for battlecruisers. Now, if we multiply this percentage times the total cost of the ship, in theory we should get a close answer. Ok, you math geniuses, help me out here. My answer is 20,926.78 for armor protection. The game number is 18,980. I think that is close.
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Jan 25, 2023 9:49:41 GMT -6
Why is the torpedo protection only level 2 on such an expensive ship? I don't remember what the research rate was, but it wasn't that high if I remember correctly. 50-70% perhaps? Like the comment below suggests, it was a design choice more then anything. You can put better torpedo defense on, but I doubt that a real life equivalent of this ship would have the best stuff. It really isn't that expensive when compared to a full sized capital ship, and only 15k more than a 16 thousand ton cruiser, so I think you can get away with torpedo protection two.
|
|