1890 DD flotilla substitute

[arminpfano]

No "strategy" thread yet? I´m the first one? I feel honored ;-)

In RTW2 my main strategy is a combined fleet of some fast CAs/BCs and a big number of DD flotillas - they chew up every battle line with ease (captains mode). CLs I only use for Foreign Stations, mainly to get them out of the way - so my CAs/BCs show up in every single cruiser battle. 

Now in the 1890 start DDs are not yet available. What to do? I found a surprisingly well working substitute in small torpedo CLs (2500 ts, 22 knts, 6TTs, some 4" guns, armor 1" only). During the first years they can be handled like a DD flotilla, with the bonus of reloading torpedos during battle. It is real fun to drive them through a battle line, firing torps in all directions.

From 1900 on 500 ts DDs get available, then these CLs should be scrapped. Otherwise they tend to explode in battle, as soon as the enemy guns get a little better...

[srndacful]

May 22, 2023 16:51:18 GMT -6 arminpfano said:

No "strategy" thread yet? I´m the first one? I feel honored ;-)

In RTW2 my main strategy is a combined fleet of some fast CAs/BCs and a big number of DD flotillas - they chew up every battle line with ease (captains mode). CLs I only use for Foreign Stations, mainly to get them out of the way - so my CAs/BCs show up in every single cruiser battle. 

Now in the 1890 start DDs are not yet available. What to do? I found a surprisingly well working substitute in small torpedo CLs (2500 ts, 22 knts, 6TTs, some 4" guns, armor 1" only). During the first years they can be handled like a DD flotilla, with the bonus of reloading torpedos during battle. It is real fun to drive them through a battle line, firing torps in all directions.

From 1900 on 500 ts DDs get available, then these CLs should be scrapped. Otherwise they tend to explode in battle, as soon as the enemy guns get a little better...

What you are describing is (literally) a diluted version of a 1890's Torpedo Boat attack and it's devastating effectiveness that (historically) led to the development of the cruiser screen and (Torpedo Boat) Destroyer ship type - both of which currently (in game) appear as if from nowhere, since there isn't a single TB in sight. 

Historically, you could build 50 TB's (with a 100 torpedoes) for the price of a single Battleship (France basically stopped building Battleships to get over 300 of them) - naturally, their short range means that they'll have to be spread out in order to make sure they participate in any battle (so you'll get only about half a dozen of those 50 - one of the reasons Destroyers are more popular) but hey - even a single torpedo hit will sink a battleship, meaning they'll pay for themselves pretty soon. 

You could think of them as 1890's version of 1930's Bombers (i.e. before AA Cruisers and radar-guided CAP were developed (sounds kinda like cruiser sceeen and Destroyers, doesn't it)) - with no effective defence, you can only watch as they come in - and pray to God they don't blow up anything important.
Edit: also, unlike planes, these guys could (and did) attack at night - which only made them infinitely more scary. 

[cormallen]

May 22, 2023 16:51:18 GMT -6 arminpfano said:

No "strategy" thread yet? I´m the first one? I feel honored ;-)

In RTW2 my main strategy is a combined fleet of some fast CAs/BCs and a big number of DD flotillas - they chew up every battle line with ease (captains mode). CLs I only use for Foreign Stations, mainly to get them out of the way - so my CAs/BCs show up in every single cruiser battle. 

Now in the 1890 start DDs are not yet available. What to do? I found a surprisingly well working substitute in small torpedo CLs (2500 ts, 22 knts, 6TTs, some 4" guns, armor 1" only). During the first years they can be handled like a DD flotilla, with the bonus of reloading torpedos during battle. It is real fun to drive them through a battle line, firing torps in all directions.

From 1900 on 500 ts DDs get available, then these CLs should be scrapped. Otherwise they tend to explode in battle, as soon as the enemy guns get a little better...

I'm looking to create "Historical-ish" 1890 start fleets for everyone (as I did for the RTW2 1900 start) by editing the Jan save file's tech research then building 200 ton (as small as game allows) 21-23 knot TBs with one or two TTs and the odd 6 pounder plus 500-900 ton Torpedo Gunboats to hunt them! I suspect the AI will send the former out with the fleet a bit too much but I'll have to see how odd that goes? I'm designing suitably terrible start fleets for everyone with actual Ironclads a plenty! Going to take a long time though as new graphics are more time consuming...

[TheOtherPoster]

That’s a really big task, cormallen !
How are you planning to tackle the armour issue in the 1890 start?
I would think the way you suggested somewhere else (which, by the way, is the same I use ) for 1900 in RTW2 is best.
Only that in 1890 in RTW3, I believe armour is not yet as good as in 1900. Nowhere as bad as it was historically, only slightly worse than 1900 Krupp. So maybe we could say that in RTW3 armour quality in 1890 is really closer to Harvey armour. (=1in Harvey = 0.8in Krupp).

To simplify a bit: I would go for
Historic wrought Iron: multiply by 0.5 to get its equivalent thickness in RTW3. So a real ship with 18in belt would have 9in belt in 1890 RTW3.
Historic Compound: x0.6 in RTW3
Historic Nickel-steel (no Harvey): x0.7 in RTW3

Or something similar, maybe

Then of course, after reducing armour so much, ships will have far too much unused weight. You’ll need to reduce their displacement to make them legal designs in the game.
I my view is better to end up with a 10000tm Royal Sovereign but with armour representing its true strength, than giving the ship 18in belt of an armour of much higher quality than Compound.

[cormallen]

May 23, 2023 7:28:48 GMT -6 TheOtherPoster said:

That’s a really big task, cormallen !
How are you planning to tackle the armour issue in the 1890 start?
I would think the way you suggested somewhere else (which, by the way, is the same I use ) for 1900 in RTW2 is best.
Only that in 1890 in RTW3, I believe armour is not yet as good as in 1900. Nowhere as bad as it was historically, only slightly worse than 1900 Krupp. So maybe we could say that in RTW3 armour quality in 1890 is really closer to Harvey armour. (=1in Harvey = 0.8in Krupp).

To simplify a bit: I would go for
Historic wrought Iron: multiply by 0.5 to get its equivalent thickness in RTW3. So a real ship with 18in belt would have 9in belt in 1890 RTW3.
Historic Compound: x0.6 in RTW3
Historic Nickel-steel (no Harvey): x0.7 in RTW3

Or something similar, maybe

Then of course, after reducing armour so much, ships will have far too much unused weight. You’ll need to reduce their displacement to make them legal designs in the game.
I my view is better to end up with a 10000tm Royal Sovereign but with armour representing its true strength, than giving the ship 18in belt of an armour of much higher quality than Compound.

I did all new start fleets and national historical (and never were) designs up to 1940s, then added in a bunch of Seawolf's designs for variety for my rolling "Quasi-Historical" games.

Finessing the game's ship design parameters is always a challenge and I've often had to fall back on brute force edits of the design files themselves. (The game doesn't re-check a pre-existing design it seems?)

The game seems to use "Krupp equivalent inches" itself (for example the game gives a 12"/-3 quality gun 5.94" pen at 1000yds vs 15" of Iron at the same range that Brassey's and Jane's give a British 12" MLR thus c.15" Iron equals c.6" of Krupp) so it works reasonably well?

It's obviously more of a stretch getting the old broadside and central battery ironclads in game but I've been having some success (and following historical precedent!) calling them "Armoured Cruisers"?

You can tweak gun quality in the save files so the old ships get lumbered with worse ordnance as appropriate.

Hopefully a selection of ageing 1870-80s stuff will make the 'Pre-Dreadnought Revolution" more striking to play through?