|
Post by ewaldvonkleist on Oct 18, 2023 16:59:07 GMT -6
Mr. Kleist, I like your 1920 design, is it legal? If so, how did you make the game accept the combo of quad A turret, 26 knots, and TPS2? Hi, my design is legal! The trick is that by using two quad all forward turrets, the TPS limitations above 18kn and 23kn do not apply. Which imho makes sense, since the compact main battery section allows you a lot of freedom in designing the bow and stern, while the part of the ship around the main battery is where it is the thickest. Note that my design, coming from 1920, does not yet benefit of all forward weigh boni, and the quadruple turrets still have some ROF and reliability debuff. But due to the weigh savings of quadruple turrets and the optimal gun firing arcs (forward firing is considerably more used than rearward firing) I still prefer this design. In normal playthroughs, I usually have bigger dockyards in 1920 and give the ship 24 6in guns (imho the best secondary) and 20 4in DP.
|
|
|
Post by ewaldvonkleist on Oct 19, 2023 17:15:03 GMT -6
Mr. Kleist, I like your 1920 design, is it legal? If so, how did you make the game accept the combo of quad A turret, 26 knots, and TPS2? Hi, my design is legal! The trick is that by using two quad all forward turrets, the TPS limitations above 18kn and 23kn do not apply. Which imho makes sense, since the compact main battery section allows you a lot of freedom in designing the bow and stern, while the part of the ship around the main battery is where it is the thickest. Note that my design, coming from 1920, does not yet benefit of all forward weigh boni, and the quadruple turrets still have some ROF and reliability debuff. But due to the weigh savings of quadruple turrets and the optimal gun firing arcs (forward firing is considerably more used than rearward firing) I still prefer this design. In normal playthroughs, I usually have bigger dockyards in 1920 and give the ship 24 6in guns (imho the best secondary) and 20 4in DP. Note that I usually play without CAs and CLs, and only build DDs and capital ships.* Therefore, I need strong secondaries on my capital ships. * The friendly AI in the game often does not properly follow orders and even if it does, it is bad at counterattacking enemy light forces and positioning CL divisions correctly. Therefore, the friendly light forces rarely effectively defend your fleet on AI control, and I do not enjoy micromanaging CLs on DD hunting trips.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Oct 20, 2023 8:04:35 GMT -6
Wow, that's even more extreme than my "no CL" approach Question: Do you consider early game armored cruisers "capital ships"? Because in that case, my approach isn't all that different.
|
|
|
Post by ewaldvonkleist on Oct 20, 2023 16:51:39 GMT -6
Wow, that's even more extreme than my "no CL" approach Question: Do you consider early game armored cruisers "capital ships"? Because in that case, my approach isn't all that different. I usually play from 1900 start. I don't use CAs for my starting fleet, because there is something better: 22kn 4*12in -1 24 6in 0 16kt built in France (which has biggest docks and 6in 0 guns). Short range or normal range according to your liking. This ship is as fast as contemporary CLs and CAs, faster after they have been mobility hit, and superior 1 vs 1 against other Bs. With France/Germany, you easily destroy first the Grand Fleet in detail amd then hunt down the cruiser fleet with this design. Only build the Bs, KEs for foreign station and as many DDs as you need for TP. Only the Bs should be on active fleet, so they spawn in almost every battle. Note that in the first years after 1900, DDs are 6in oneshots or two-shots, they are still slow and torp range is low while AI is reluctant to fire. So your Bs will be very effective vs. DDs with their 24 6in secondaries even without escorts. If you are talking the 1890 start, big CAs in some way are the BCs and can be considered capital ships. For 1890 imho best design is using full dock size, 24 6in (best gun), weak main artillery and armour according to personal meta.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 21, 2023 7:22:27 GMT -6
I just thought I would pass along this link to ship plans at the National Archives -
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 21, 2023 8:46:43 GMT -6
Here is a design that we should try to duplicate... maybe
Ok, I made an attempt to duplicate the Tillman battleship. I started a US 1935 game but could not get 80000 tons. So I got 60000. I could not get 245 x 16 guns but I got 16 x16 inch guns. Here is the design. I am still modifying it.
|
|
|
Post by ewaldvonkleist on Oct 21, 2023 16:25:17 GMT -6
Here is a design that we should try to duplicate... maybe
Ok, I made an attempt to duplicate the Tillman battleship. I started a US 1935 game but could not get 80000 tons. So I got 60000. I could not get 245 x 16 guns but I got 16 x16 inch guns. Here is the design. I am still modifying it.
Are you reading the ship plan as having magazine box protection? Building some of the IRL super battleships ingame is difficult because there is a problem with the RtW3 armour weight formula. It growths linear or even slightly superlinear with displacement, instead of sublinear as IRL. Therefore, the armour weight advantage of very big ships that is baked into IRL weight calculations does not apply to RtW3 ships.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 21, 2023 16:54:00 GMT -6
Here is a design that we should try to duplicate... maybe
Ok, I made an attempt to duplicate the Tillman battleship. I started a US 1935 game but could not get 80000 tons. So I got 60000. I could not get 245 x 16 guns but I got 16 x16 inch guns. Here is the design. I am still modifying it.
Are you reading the ship plan as having magazine box protection? Building some of the IRL super battleships ingame is difficult because there is a problem with the RtW3 armour weight formula. It growths linear or even slightly superlinear with displacement, instead of sublinear as IRL. Therefore, the armour weight advantage of very big ships that is baked into IRL weight calculations does not apply to RtW3 ships. Yes, I was. My ship is based on Tillman Battleship #3. The first US battleships to have AON were the Pennsylvania's around 1910. The Tillman's were designed in around 1917 so it is my personal belief that they would have had AON. When I let the game design my BB in 1935, it uses AON and a 43000 ton battleship.
|
|
|
Post by ewaldvonkleist on Oct 21, 2023 19:57:25 GMT -6
Are you reading the ship plan as having magazine box protection? Building some of the IRL super battleships ingame is difficult because there is a problem with the RtW3 armour weight formula. It growths linear or even slightly superlinear with displacement, instead of sublinear as IRL. Therefore, the armour weight advantage of very big ships that is baked into IRL weight calculations does not apply to RtW3 ships. Yes, I was. My ship is based on Tillman Battleship #3. The first US battleships to have AON were the Pennsylvania's around 1910. The Tillman's were designed in around 1917 so it is my personal belief that they would have had AON. When I let the game design my BB in 1935, it uses AON and a 43000 ton battleship.
You have the checkbox magazine box protection ticked. Which halves your armour everywhere except for the magazines, and was a very rare type of armour scheme. I do not believe that this represents Maximum Battleship armour schemes, since it would have made the citadel penetrable even by old dreadnoughts around much of the hull and engines. If you untick the box, you probably have to add 20kt displacement to get in the black weight wise for your design
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Oct 21, 2023 23:19:18 GMT -6
What I find interesting about the AON scheme is Britain used it in the 1870s, built a few warships with the scheme then abandoned it in favour of other schemes - it seemed to disappear for 30-40 years.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 22, 2023 6:26:30 GMT -6
Yes, I was. My ship is based on Tillman Battleship #3. The first US battleships to have AON were the Pennsylvania's around 1910. The Tillman's were designed in around 1917 so it is my personal belief that they would have had AON. When I let the game design my BB in 1935, it uses AON and a 43000 ton battleship.
You have the checkbox magazine box protection ticked. Which halves your armour everywhere except for the magazines, and was a very rare type of armour scheme. I do not believe that this represents Maximum Battleship armour schemes, since it would have made the citadel penetrable even by old dreadnoughts around much of the hull and engines. If you untick the box, you probably have to add 20kt displacement to get in the black weight wise for your design Thanks, I will change the design.. Appreciated.
Update: I modified my design and here it is.
I can't build this heavy battleship, so I have reduced the displacement to 44900 tons and reduced the speed to 28 knots. The game will build it. The design will be on the next post.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 22, 2023 7:36:39 GMT -6
Here is my buildable version. Same firepower and torpedoes, just two knots slower. This design and my other two correspond to the actual Tillman #3. I have already put a link to the drawings.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 23, 2023 9:27:15 GMT -6
Based on sources, here is how it was designed... different nations did it different. 1. Side armor was canted outward at the top. In the game then, use inclined armor. 2. deck armor was increased. No deck extended. 3. Armored belts were moved inboard. I don't think the game does this. However, don't use belt extended. 4. Torpedo protection below and outboard of the belt. In the game, use Torpedo protection 5. Reducing the number of main turrets, reduced the length of the citadel. In the game then, we should use three turrets with double or triple guns. Turret top armor was increased. 6. Moving from coal to oil fuel which reduced the which also reduced the length. I haven't checked on this in the game.
All this was the result of long range shots with shell falling down and hitting the deck. The US did this before Jutland, RN did not.
I am still researching this but this is what I see.
Update: Here is a US design that I feel follows the above concepts.
|
|
|
Post by ewaldvonkleist on Oct 23, 2023 11:15:43 GMT -6
Why 13.5 inches turret top? I would give the DP guns 2in splinter protection too. If you go for three quadruple turrets, the saved weigh can be invested in the rather weak armour belt.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 23, 2023 11:18:39 GMT -6
Why 13.5 inches turret top? I would give the DP guns 2in splinter protection too. If you go for three quadruple turrets, the saved weigh can be invested in the rather weak armour belt. I am duplicating the AON design that the General Services Board stimulated. Quad turrets were too complex and were not adopted by the US. The DP guns using extra armor added to the weight which would decrease the speed. Speed, protection and firepower in a balance is my modus operandi. Another issue with four gun turrets is that if you take a hit on one four gun turret, you will lost four guns... on a three gun turret, you might only lose three guns. You will save guns and you can continue to fire.
|
|