AoN All or Nothing

[blackswan]

I know it's a touchy subject, but i dont see the advantage aon has over sloped deck in the game.
For the same effective protection it's heavier, and you cant put upper belt with it.
I read that it supposedly preserves flotation better, but does anybody know if it has any other explicit benefits ?
The only way i see i could use it is on CLs that i know wont have enough armor, so may as well get the flotation protection.
I think later you need so much deck that sloped deck is clearly better, but before that when you can get away with a 2" deck, you can use aon to have a full extended belt, at the cost of you upper belt.
So the question actually is "How important is upper belt ?"
I know that there isn't anything "vital" behind it, you cant have a jammed rudder or electrical power cut by a upper belt penetration (i dont think so ?), but it protects your structure from the small caliber HE rounds, and structure affects lots of important things such as accuracy and damage control, so i dont know.

Side question i just wondered, does anybody know if the sloping of the deck affects the extended parts ? As in you can shave off 2" of extended belt if you put 2" of extended deck and it's the same effective protection ?

[dia]

Iirc there were players in RtW2 who preferred sloped decks on their BB's because they were losing ships to small caliber hits that weren't penetrating the citadel but causing flotation damage elsewhere. I think I considered going down that route in my last playthrough but ended up sticking with AoN for the weight savings so I could max out on deck armor to survive AP bombs. I was playing Italy.

[w2c]

From what I've heard AoN is much more viable in RTW3 than it was in 2. The actual reasons behind that are less clear to me, but that's what I've been hearing.

[Enderminion]

In RTW2, penetration of belt armor was much greater, as was AP bomb penetration, thus sloped deck was considered superior due to deck armor pulling double duty as belt armor in a sloped deck configuration.
In RTW3 belt penetration is much lower thus negating the need for 20"+ effective belt armor of a sloped deck design while AP bomb penetration is also much reduced thus partially negating the need for thick deck armor, except that long range hits are more likely as are deck hits. The current "meta" is AoN with an extremely thick BE and DE.

[blackswan]

May 29, 2023 22:28:49 GMT -6 Enderminion said:

In RTW2, penetration of belt armor was much greater, as was AP bomb penetration, thus sloped deck was considered superior due to deck armor pulling double duty as belt armor in a sloped deck configuration.
In RTW3 belt penetration is much lower thus negating the need for 20"+ effective belt armor of a sloped deck design while AP bomb penetration is also much reduced thus partially negating the need for thick deck armor, except that long range hits are more likely as are deck hits. The current "meta" is AoN with an extremely thick BE and DE.

I still dont get how its better than sloped deck. Whatever the effective protection you need, sloped deck is lighter and cheaper. Am i in the wrong when i say that a shell striking the belt or belt extented has to go through the deck or deck extended ? Anyway, what are the biggest AP bombs penetration values in RtW3 ?

[dorn]

AoN is certaily lighter than sloped deck with same thickness.
Look into the manual, you can clerly sea that the slope is longer than flat horizontal armour.

In RTW3 you can have BE and DE with AoN.

[blackswan]

May 30, 2023 4:02:09 GMT -6 dorn said:

AoN is certaily lighter than sloped deck with same thickness.
Look into the manual, you can clerly sea that the slope is longer than flat horizontal armour.

In RTW3 you can have BE and DE with AoN.

Yes indeed a sloped deck weighs more than a flat one, but allows you to shave off as many inches of belt as you have of deck and still have the same effective belt protection (even a bit more, as the closer the ennemy, the more oblique the shells strike the the sloped part of the deck behind the belt) and that always result in a lighter armor scheme for the same effective protection. Or im dead wrong, but i dont see how a sloped deck could perform differently than what It's known for. I tried giving the same effective protection to a ship with sloped deck and aon a number of times, and sloped deck is always lighter. By more or less 500 tons on a 44000 tons ship. So, what could possibly make me use aon instead of sloped deck ?

[Enderminion]

There are also now B*D hits that'll do a chunk of superstructure damage, which is one of the ways a big capital ship will die.

[t3rm1dor]

How would both arranges compare in regards to missile strikes? I'am just getting started with missile and how deadly they can be, and seeing how a) upper belt hits can start a nasty fire b) deck hits appear to not be a thing, which would work better?( or even flat on deck with small deck armour, although late game engagements can start very far).

[blackswan]

May 30, 2023 8:41:09 GMT -6 Enderminion said:

There are also now B*D hits that'll do a chunk of superstructure damage, which is one of the ways a big capital ship will die.

Oh yeah i saw that, does it mean that the shell penetrates the belt but stops on the sloped deck ? What is there to know about this new type of hit ? It does a lot of structure damage ?