|
|
Post by Nicholas on Feb 10, 2024 14:47:15 GMT -6
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."
Thus you need to know the restrictions in designing cruisers, in this case the CA. While the CA designation covers both armoured cruisers and heavy cruisers, there is a significant difference between the two ships. The heavy cruiser of the 1920s will be powered by oil-fired steam turbines rather than the reciprocating steam engines of the armoured cruiser from before 1905, thusly so heavy cruisers are capable of far faster speeds. Furthermore, heavy cruisers carried their main armament in centerline super firing turrets and benefitted from the superior fire control of the 1920s, thus any heavy cruiser will outgun any armoured cruiser. As such, you must be asking "If CAs are always getting faster and have more and more guns, then how can I design around them?", well the answer is simple: CAs have design limits. Know what these design limits are and you can design and build ships capable of defeating CAs a hundred times over.
The first limit to take note of is that CAs are limited to less than 20,000 tons. The second limit is that CAs are nominally limited to 10 inch guns, unless they fall under the Deutschland-type in which case they can mount at most 6 11" guns. The third limit is CAs cannot carry more than 9.5" of armor. (Do note that I'm getting the gun and armor limits from the RTW2 wiki because there isn't a RWT3 wiki yet and while the game Ebook lists 12 inches as the limit to belt armor this did not pan out upon testing for this post.)
With that in mind realize two things. You, the player, are subjected to these limits and the AI usually does not design and build CAs to the upper limit of what is allowed. As such, to kill a CA you must design a battlecruiser (BC). This is a natural conclusion, the first battlecruisers designed by the British were developments of the armoured cruisers at the time of their inception. The goal of the battlecruiser is to destroy armored cruisers with heavy gunfire and in game battlecruisers must have main guns larger than 10". This means that the smallest gun caliber a battlecruiser can mount is 11", but since a CA can be armed with 6 11" guns as a Deutschland-type any cruiser killer should be armed with 8 12" guns at the bare minimum. As armor improves as time moves on then it should be stated that belt armor must be 10" at the bare minimum for a cruiser killer. 20,000 tons should also be set as the bare minimum for a cruiser killer and keep in mind that limiting tonnage also keeps costs down.
Long story short, 20,000 tons and 10" belt armor minimum and 8 12" guns is what you need for a CA killer. Emphasis on CA killer, because any BC that the enemy will design will be wildly different each game session and will probably take your designs into account. Not even taking into account aircraft, fast battleship designs and missiles, oh my.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheatereater on Feb 11, 2024 2:47:04 GMT -6
I don't think the BC cruiser killer is really a thing in RTW. It is important to note that the battle generator really tries to put similar classes up against each other, thus if you bring BCs to kill CAs you will tend to get BC vs BC fights, and if your BCs are built vs. 10" guns and 6" armor CAs... But it's true that the AI doesn't build to the limit normally, and I find this especially true for cruisers. I build heavier cruisers that can take on the AI in cruiser vs. cruiser battles and they work fine. This means giving CLs 3" belt armor, and CAs 6", then trying to fit more and bigger guns on them. A 3" belt CL with 6" guns will easily beat a 2" belt CL with 5" guns, which the AI likes to build; similarly, putting 6" belt on a CA really lets you stay at a reasonable range and pen the enemy 4-5" belt CAs. I went to check a game from 1918, to compare my CAs vs the enemy CAs, and... well, the AI doesn't really build CAs in the early 1900s, the latest one was built in 1909. So I'll reemphasize that if you just build CAs at all, any modern ones, they'll smash whatever the AI has leftover. I'll show how the CA situation is in the 30s (I am Germany). Only the Russians have something to compete, and that's because theirs are much more modern.  And for good measure, a few enemy BCs you could be facing. Do you want 10" of armor vs 16" guns?
|
|
|
|
Post by tendravina on Feb 28, 2024 21:27:32 GMT -6
I don't think the BC cruiser killer is really a thing in RTW. It is important to note that the battle generator really tries to put similar classes up against each other, thus if you bring BCs to kill CAs you will tend to get BC vs BC fights, and if your BCs are built vs. 10" guns and 6" armor CAs... But it's true that the AI doesn't build to the limit normally, and I find this especially true for cruisers. I build heavier cruisers that can take on the AI in cruiser vs. cruiser battles and they work fine. This means giving CLs 3" belt armor, and CAs 6", then trying to fit more and bigger guns on them. A 3" belt CL with 6" guns will easily beat a 2" belt CL with 5" guns, which the AI likes to build; similarly, putting 6" belt on a CA really lets you stay at a reasonable range and pen the enemy 4-5" belt CAs. I went to check a game from 1918, to compare my CAs vs the enemy CAs, and... well, the AI doesn't really build CAs in the early 1900s, the latest one was built in 1909. So I'll reemphasize that if you just build CAs at all, any modern ones, they'll smash whatever the AI has leftover. I'll show how the CA situation is in the 30s (I am Germany). Only the Russians have something to compete, and that's because theirs are much more modern. And for good measure, a few enemy BCs you could be facing. Do you want 10" of armor vs 16" guns?
To the contrary, I know of multiple people who use battlecruisers to hunt down cruisers, however they tend to use heavier guns like 14, 15, or even 17 inch guns for the largest. As you can see with your designs, it is fairly hard to get a significant armament on a heavy cruiser of less than 15000 tons, and in the late 30s we see designs like CA6X6 and CA8X4, 20000+ ton monsters that stack 12-16 quad 10-inch guns each. With an armament designed to simply outrange the heavy cruiser, the BC cruiser killer is also capable of fighting enemy battlecruisers. In addition, from my conversations with these players, veterans of RTW2, it seems that the class matching system was a thing then, but it has been replaced by a destroyer-light cruiser-capital ship distinction where heavy cruisers count as capital ships, something which I am inclined to believe from my personal experience as well. Honestly, this makes some sense, as battlecruisers were initially designed to chase heavy cruiser precursors (i.e. armored cruisers) off the waters. Thus building a heavy cruiser won't allow you to escape the wrath of the battlecruisers, but instead leaves you with fleet units that have far less combat value than a BC cruiser killer. And yes, a 12-inch BC cruiser killer does none of these things, it cannot kill cruisers nor can it fight in the battle line. Correction: The battle generator might like matching heavy cruisers to heavy cruisers, but they nevertheless do match heavy cruisers to battlecruisers fairly often. |
|
|
|
Post by ludovic on Feb 29, 2024 16:02:50 GMT -6
In addition, from my conversations with these players, veterans of RTW2, it seems that the class matching system was a thing then, but it has been replaced by a destroyer-light cruiser-capital ship distinction where heavy cruisers count as capital ships, something which I am inclined to believe from my personal experience as well. Honestly, this makes some sense, as battlecruisers were initially designed to chase heavy cruiser precursors (i.e. armored cruisers) off the waters. Thus building a heavy cruiser won't allow you to escape the wrath of the battlecruisers, but instead leaves you with fleet units that have far less combat value than a BC cruiser killer. And yes, a 12-inch BC cruiser killer does none of these things, it cannot kill cruisers nor can it fight in the battle line. Correction: The battle generator might like matching heavy cruisers to heavy cruisers, but they nevertheless do match heavy cruisers to battlecruisers fairly often. That seems fair, since in RTW2 that is how I end up playing my CAs: almost exactly like BCs were played in real life. i.e. as cruiser killers that nonetheless sometimes are ill-advisedly thrown into a battle line. Whereas I play my BCs like fast battleships, not creating one unless it is within a couple of inches of my ideal armour and thus it not being a completely insane idea for it to be in the battle line. In RTW2, CAs can sometimes fight in the battle line if they are thrown against BCs with 6" armor. I'm not sure how often that happens in RTW3. |
|
|
|
Post by cheatereater on Mar 1, 2024 0:56:59 GMT -6
To the contrary, I know of multiple people who use battlecruisers to hunt down cruisers, however they tend to use heavier guns like 14, 15, or even 17 inch guns for the largest. As you can see with your designs, it is fairly hard to get a significant armament on a heavy cruiser of less than 15000 tons, and in the late 30s we see designs like CA6X6 and CA8X4, 20000+ ton monsters that stack 12-16 quad 10-inch guns each. With an armament designed to simply outrange the heavy cruiser, the BC cruiser killer is also capable of fighting enemy battlecruisers. In addition, from my conversations with these players, veterans of RTW2, it seems that the class matching system was a thing then, but it has been replaced by a destroyer-light cruiser-capital ship distinction where heavy cruisers count as capital ships, something which I am inclined to believe from my personal experience as well. Honestly, this makes some sense, as battlecruisers were initially designed to chase heavy cruiser precursors (i.e. armored cruisers) off the waters. Thus building a heavy cruiser won't allow you to escape the wrath of the battlecruisers, but instead leaves you with fleet units that have far less combat value than a BC cruiser killer. And yes, a 12-inch BC cruiser killer does none of these things, it cannot kill cruisers nor can it fight in the battle line. Correction: The battle generator might like matching heavy cruisers to heavy cruisers, but they nevertheless do match heavy cruisers to battlecruisers fairly often. Look, if you're mounting 17" guns on a BC and matching it against enemy BCs, that's not a "cruiser killer." It's just a battlecruiser, no additional appellations necessary. And yes, a BC can kill a CA, that's not terribly insightful, just as a CA can kill a CL and a CL can kill a DD. The original question seemed to be, "what is the minimal BC to hunt and kill CAs?" I say this is not really a worthwhile goal, as your anti-CA BCs are liable to go against plain BCs where they will be at a significant disadvantage, and in the timeframe when an anti-CA BC might be viable the AI stops building CAs anyway.
The class-matching it never perfect, sometimes you will get DDs thrown against CLs or CAs vs CLs. I speak from my experience that these matchups are less common than roughly even matchups, as the battle generator seems to want to pit roughly equal forces against each other, and you can't guarantee any starting circumstances. If given the choice, I would always choose a BC over a CA. But BCs are expensive, and because of the changing requirements they get more and more expensive relative to CAs over time as BCs compete against each other. So I say, if the AI is building CAs and you want to fight them, it is worthwhile to build bigger and stronger CAs rather than relying on weak BCs. If your CA is matched up against a BC, you do the same thing as when you CL goes against a CA or a DD against a CL: run away! But I can build 2-3 times as many big CAs as competitive BCs by the 30s, and numbers do matter when you have to cover sea zones.
I am unsure why you think a ship mounting 12" guns can't defeat CAs? This is pretty standard for early BCs that are just bigger CAs. 12" guns and 9+" armor beats 10" guns and <8" armor any time.
|
|
|
|
Post by tendravina on Mar 1, 2024 9:01:25 GMT -6
Look, if you're mounting 17" guns on a BC and matching it against enemy BCs, that's not a "cruiser killer." It's just a battlecruiser, no additional appellations necessary. And yes, a BC can kill a CA, that's not terribly insightful, just as a CA can kill a CL and a CL can kill a DD. The original question seemed to be, "what is the minimal BC to hunt and kill CAs?" I say this is not really a worthwhile goal, as your anti-CA BCs are liable to go against plain BCs where they will be at a significant disadvantage, and in the timeframe when an anti-CA BC might be viable the AI stops building CAs anyway.
The class-matching it never perfect, sometimes you will get DDs thrown against CLs or CAs vs CLs. I speak from my experience that these matchups are less common than roughly even matchups, as the battle generator seems to want to pit roughly equal forces against each other, and you can't guarantee any starting circumstances. If given the choice, I would always choose a BC over a CA. But BCs are expensive, and because of the changing requirements they get more and more expensive relative to CAs over time as BCs compete against each other. So I say, if the AI is building CAs and you want to fight them, it is worthwhile to build bigger and stronger CAs rather than relying on weak BCs. If your CA is matched up against a BC, you do the same thing as when you CL goes against a CA or a DD against a CL: run away! But I can build 2-3 times as many big CAs as competitive BCs by the 30s, and numbers do matter when you have to cover sea zones.
I am unsure why you think a ship mounting 12" guns can't defeat CAs? This is pretty standard for early BCs that are just bigger CAs. 12" guns and 9+" armor beats 10" guns and <8" armor any time.
The logic of equipping larger weapons is that, first, your ship needs fewer weapons to do the job, and secondly your ship has more range and accuracy. To some extent this happens with 12-inch guns, but as the game continues the gap between 10-inch and 12-inch guns closes. So for a 12-inch ship you still need the weight that you'd need for larger guns, but your ship would be noticeably less effective. AND the 12-inch ship will find itself more likely to fight real battlecruisers, just like the larger caliber cruiser killer will. In addition, the AI never really stops building CAs, as they continue to build CAs into the 1960s. The templates I've mentioned, which feature 12 or 16 10" guns on 20000+ tons, start in the 1930s. This leaves a 30+ year timespan where your cruiser killers will have to face 10", 20000+ ton ships. And just to match, you have to spend 100,000 budget. In short, you can't feasibly make twice or thrice the number of effective big CAs, as a 200,000 budget ship would straight up be your 50,000 ton front line units. At best you can get three large CAs for two large cruiser killers, and you can stuff a lot more armor and other things onto a large cruiser killer. In addition, CA/BC mismatched match-ups are pretty common, so your CA will also have to compete directly with BCs according to your logic, which is simply impossible unless you are really close and able to hose them down with fires. However, the large caliber cruiser killer, with its large guns, can both flee if alone (this is a design requirement after all), or fight in the battle line if there are front line BCs. This is simply something not possible with 10-inch ships, or 12-inch ones for that matter. It should be noted that CL/BC mismatchs are also pretty common as well, with the majority of my battles in a recent war being CL/BC mismatchs. Does that mean that CLs have no more uses? No, it doesn't; CLs get CL specific slots in the battle generator. However, CAs get thrown with the rest of the capital ships. In other words, there is really not a niche the CA has that a large caliber cruiser killer cannot do. To put it another way, there is no *gun*-matching in this game, there is only limited class-matching and definite capital ship/light cruiser slot matching. Your claim that 17-inch cruiser killers will have to compete with proper BCs, then, means that your 12-inch cruiser killers will have to compete with proper BCs, and which means that your 10-inch cruiser killers will have to compete with proper BCs. And they also have to compete with each other. P.S: About colonial fights: If your doctrine is to simply run away from capital ship battles, or simply to maintain a colonial presence, then it stands to reason that all you really need is a bunch of smaller, colonial CAs and CLs that still have the armament to deal with CLs effectively. You do not need a super-CA, so this is a whole different concept. I know people who like to use small, pre-dreadnought style BCs as well for this purpose. Again, if you're using colonial CAs and BCs, you have to "compete" with full-scale BCs, a task which is a folly. |
|
|
|
Post by tendravina on Mar 1, 2024 10:36:32 GMT -6
In addition, from my conversations with these players, veterans of RTW2, it seems that the class matching system was a thing then, but it has been replaced by a destroyer-light cruiser-capital ship distinction where heavy cruisers count as capital ships, something which I am inclined to believe from my personal experience as well. Honestly, this makes some sense, as battlecruisers were initially designed to chase heavy cruiser precursors (i.e. armored cruisers) off the waters. Thus building a heavy cruiser won't allow you to escape the wrath of the battlecruisers, but instead leaves you with fleet units that have far less combat value than a BC cruiser killer. And yes, a 12-inch BC cruiser killer does none of these things, it cannot kill cruisers nor can it fight in the battle line. Correction: The battle generator might like matching heavy cruisers to heavy cruisers, but they nevertheless do match heavy cruisers to battlecruisers fairly often. That seems fair, since in RTW2 that is how I end up playing my CAs: almost exactly like BCs were played in real life. i.e. as cruiser killers that nonetheless sometimes are ill-advisedly thrown into a battle line. Whereas I play my BCs like fast battleships, not creating one unless it is within a couple of inches of my ideal armour and thus it not being a completely insane idea for it to be in the battle line. In RTW2, CAs can sometimes fight in the battle line if they are thrown against BCs with 6" armor. I'm not sure how often that happens in RTW3. That is not an unfair proposition, I also have BCs that play like fast battleships and have consistently advocated for fast battleships elsewhere. However, given that their speed might not be optimal, the cruiser killer question can arise. That said, in reasons I illustrated in my previous post, I, and the people I talked to, prefer a large-gun BC on an uparmored cruiser hull for this role, instead of true super-CAs. This is less risky than you might think since AP penetration values in the game are somewhat depressed, but even in mods that adjust this one can adjust. If you're stuck with building super-CAs, you should know how to play them. You have to get uncomfortably close and hose the enemy down with HE shells, setting multiple fires and disabling turrets until the ship goes down, and also hope the enemy ship constantly overpenetrates your hull. Or that's how I saw someone deal with a 60000-ton 18" behemoth with two of their super-CAs. At 6000 yards. That said, if you get that close, specifically within 13000 yards, you run the risk of torpedoes. This can be greater with oxygen torpedoes, I believe. This is another reason why the range of larger caliber guns is so important to the large-gun cruiser killer concept, so the effective range is extended beyond torpedo range. This is a very common threat, as a lot of light cruisers are stacked with torpedoes as well as their escorting destroyers. And in this case, the effective range of a 10-inch CA is still uncomfortably close to the torpedo limit. |
|
|
|
Post by cheatereater on Mar 1, 2024 13:41:58 GMT -6
The logic of equipping larger weapons is that, first, your ship needs fewer weapons to do the job, and secondly your ship has more range and accuracy. To some extent this happens with 12-inch guns, but as the game continues the gap between 10-inch and 12-inch guns closes. So for a 12-inch ship you still need the weight that you'd need for larger guns, but your ship would be noticeably less effective. AND the 12-inch ship will find itself more likely to fight real battlecruisers, just like the larger caliber cruiser killer will. In addition, the AI never really stops building CAs, as they continue to build CAs into the 1960s. The templates I've mentioned, which feature 12 or 16 10" guns on 20000+ tons, start in the 1930s. This leaves a 30+ year timespan where your cruiser killers will have to face 10", 20000+ ton ships. And just to match, you have to spend 100,000 budget. In short, you can't feasibly make twice or thrice the number of effective big CAs, as a 200,000 budget ship would straight up be your 50,000 ton front line units. At best you can get three large CAs for two large cruiser killers, and you can stuff a lot more armor and other things onto a large cruiser killer. In addition, CA/BC mismatched match-ups are pretty common, so your CA will also have to compete directly with BCs according to your logic, which is simply impossible unless you are really close and able to hose them down with fires. However, the large caliber cruiser killer, with its large guns, can both flee if alone (this is a design requirement after all), or fight in the battle line if there are front line BCs. This is simply something not possible with 10-inch ships, or 12-inch ones for that matter. It should be noted that CL/BC mismatchs are also pretty common as well, with the majority of my battles in a recent war being CL/BC mismatchs. Does that mean that CLs have no more uses? No, it doesn't; CLs get CL specific slots in the battle generator. However, CAs get thrown with the rest of the capital ships. In other words, there is really not a niche the CA has that a large caliber cruiser killer cannot do. To put it another way, there is no *gun*-matching in this game, there is only limited class-matching and definite capital ship/light cruiser slot matching. Your claim that 17-inch cruiser killers will have to compete with proper BCs, then, means that your 12-inch cruiser killers will have to compete with proper BCs, and which means that your 10-inch cruiser killers will have to compete with proper BCs. And they also have to compete with each other. P.S: About colonial fights: If your doctrine is to simply run away from capital ship battles, or simply to maintain a colonial presence, then it stands to reason that all you really need is a bunch of smaller, colonial CAs and CLs that still have the armament to deal with CLs effectively. You do not need a super-CA, so this is a whole different concept. I know people who like to use small, pre-dreadnought style BCs as well for this purpose. Again, if you're using colonial CAs and BCs, you have to "compete" with full-scale BCs, a task which is a folly. You can check 10" vs 12" guns in game for the actual gap. Here are the gun stats for my 1960 game. You'll note that the 10" guns are +1 quality and still are totally outmatched by the 12" guns. Yes, everyone wants the biggest guns possible, the tradeoff ignored here is in cost and tonnage. Until you look at those you won't even have half the picture. I think you may be confusing me with another poster, I argued against 12" gun BCs because they will be pitted against more heavily armed BCs more often than a CA will.
I can't say what happens in other people's games, but in mine there is a lull in CA building from 1905-1925, very roughly speaking, which corresponds well to the introduction of smaller BCs against which the CAs cannot compete. The CAs come back as BCs grow larger. At no time have I seen these huge 20K+ ton CAs, perhaps this is related to the AI trying to match a human's players bigger designs if you build them first? In any case, such big CAs are a waste IMO; they're still vulnerable to the lightest BCs with worse guns and armor and just as vulnerable vs. aircraft, but they're much too big to deploy as "cruisers."
CA/BC matchups are not common in my games. Are you filling out your fleets appropriately? Of course the game will give CA vs. BC fights if you don't have the BCs available. It does weight tonnage as well to my knowledge, so if you have super-heavy CAs they might be more likely to fall in with BCs. My CAs never compete with enemy BCs because I just retreat if I get the odd CA vs. BC matchup (uncommon for me), and there are no points lost for a retreat. If your "cruiser killer" BC can fight in the battle line, perhaps it's not a cruiser killer at all? To fight in the battle line is going to require a lot of armor and the big guns, right...? Can you post your designs for your cruiser killers and the comparable enemy ships? I almost never see CL vs. BC, generally something else is going on then, I can't see how you get the majority of your battles being CL vs. BC without very odd circumstances. What were they? Cruisers are not capital ships...
At no point have I advocated for a 12" BC as a good cruiser killer, that is the opposite of my argument. Please re-read my responses. I do not build 12" gun cruiser killers.
As for your PS, where I have called for running from capital ships battles? I have said that if your ship ends up in an overmatched battle, which happens sometimes, you should flee. Do you not? There is no "maintain a colonial presence" in wartime, your ships get to fight and stop invasions and control the seas around XYZ and hunt raiders, all things that need ships that can fight, but many nations also need to cover many sea zones. You don't have to compete CA vs. BC then because there aren't enough funds to go around, even on the largest setting; if one would project so many big BCs it necessarily weakens the home region. Colonial control vs. blockade.
|
|
|
|
Post by tendravina on Mar 2, 2024 0:13:25 GMT -6
You can check 10" vs 12" guns in game for the actual gap. Here are the gun stats for my 1960 game. You'll note that the 10" guns are +1 quality and still are totally outmatched by the 12" guns. Yes, everyone wants the biggest guns possible, the tradeoff ignored here is in cost and tonnage. Until you look at those you won't even have half the picture. I think you may be confusing me with another poster, I argued against 12" gun BCs because they will be pitted against more heavily armed BCs more often than a CA will.
I can't say what happens in other people's games, but in mine there is a lull in CA building from 1905-1925, very roughly speaking, which corresponds well to the introduction of smaller BCs against which the CAs cannot compete. The CAs come back as BCs grow larger. At no time have I seen these huge 20K+ ton CAs, perhaps this is related to the AI trying to match a human's players bigger designs if you build them first? In any case, such big CAs are a waste IMO; they're still vulnerable to the lightest BCs with worse guns and armor and just as vulnerable vs. aircraft, but they're much too big to deploy as "cruisers."
CA/BC matchups are not common in my games. Are you filling out your fleets appropriately? Of course the game will give CA vs. BC fights if you don't have the BCs available. It does weight tonnage as well to my knowledge, so if you have super-heavy CAs they might be more likely to fall in with BCs. My CAs never compete with enemy BCs because I just retreat if I get the odd CA vs. BC matchup (uncommon for me), and there are no points lost for a retreat. If your "cruiser killer" BC can fight in the battle line, perhaps it's not a cruiser killer at all? To fight in the battle line is going to require a lot of armor and the big guns, right...? Can you post your designs for your cruiser killers and the comparable enemy ships? I almost never see CL vs. BC, generally something else is going on then, I can't see how you get the majority of your battles being CL vs. BC without very odd circumstances. What were they? Cruisers are not capital ships...
At no point have I advocated for a 12" BC as a good cruiser killer, that is the opposite of my argument. Please re-read my responses. I do not build 12" gun cruiser killers.
As for your PS, where I have called for running from capital ships battles? I have said that if your ship ends up in an overmatched battle, which happens sometimes, you should flee. Do you not? There is no "maintain a colonial presence" in wartime, your ships get to fight and stop invasions and control the seas around XYZ and hunt raiders, all things that need ships that can fight, but many nations also need to cover many sea zones. You don't have to compete CA vs. BC then because there aren't enough funds to go around, even on the largest setting; if one would project so many big BCs it necessarily weakens the home region. Colonial control vs. blockade. Oh my sweet summer child, if you haven't seen those super-CAs I feel sorry for you because one day you will, and you will be screwed over. To be clear, you will be hunting no cruisers with anything smaller than 20000 tons, as even the lightest AI templates can be 17000. And, as stated earlier, your CA cruiser killer will be half a full-size BB, and one BB is worth more blockade points than two CAs (2 and a half, actually), so even your full-size BB gives you better coverage until the 1950s, at which point CAs don't take over, carriers do. And no, as far as I, or the people I've asked about this, are aware, there is no tonnage matching either, and even if there was since the large-caliber cruiser killer is typically under 32000 tons, at worst under 35000, and those are closer to true battlecruisers with their armor. The lighter 21000-27000 ton ships, if tonnage matching was a thing, would be more likely to be matched with ancient 12" ships. And your battle line is likely 45000-55000 tons without treaty, in any case. Think of these as Alaskas who had their 12" swapped for equal weights of 15" or 17" rather than Iowas. As for the reply to my PS, as I said, CAs are considered capital ships, so a mismatched CA/BC battle is a capital ship battle. So we have a battle that is simultaneously an overmatched battle and a capital ship battle. It follows that capital ship battles are the only mismatched battles CAs can participate in. Thus, you're effectively advocating for running away from capital ship battles. And if you want more BCs, then why don't you build more BCs? The large caliber cruiser killer concept both fulfills the raider hunter role and the BC requirements and, being a BC, fulfills sea control requirements at about the same cost as two 15000 ton colonial CAs (again, until the 1950s). Thus, not having enough cost is actually in favor of the large caliber cruiser killer. For the remaining points, if you have no CAs, then you will face BC versus CA battles pretty frequently, which are advantageous to you (and more advantageous than any CA versus CA battles). At the same time, the AI does not tend to cover multiple sea zones, they tend to dog-pile on one sea zone while leaving the rest with what are effectively screening forces. In other words, the worst thing that can happen is that you're fighting in two or three sea zones at the same time, not six or seven. In addition, more cruisers might be worth it if we get multiple raider battles a month, but multiple battles a month does not happen in Rule the Waves 3 and it would be pretty tiring if implemented, so I prefer not. In the current system, you are killing one cruiser a month at best. P.S: Yeah, the CL vs BC circumstances were slightly strange. I was China, I outclassed the Japanese fleet with a combination of older vessels, both BCs and BBs, and 17" BBs. So they basically rejected every battle where they can't do CL vs BC. But that was a light forces battle, which should nominally only have CAs maximum. However, since CAs and BCs share the same slot in the battle generator, this means fleet size BCs get involved. P.P.S: I've met with some of these people I've talked to about this, and we've come together to say that the 12000 ton post-BC CA is the literal worst ship in the game. Smaller CAs can kill raider CLs and AMCs on TP mode, but when we talk about cruiser killers we're talking about killing larger CAs. Ultimately, why I am fighting so hard here is to establish the problem first, before I make a proposal later to fix it |
|
|
|
Post by cheatereater on Mar 2, 2024 3:07:51 GMT -6
Oh my sweet summer child, if you haven't seen those super-CAs I feel sorry for you because one day you will, and you will be screwed over. To be clear, you will be hunting no cruisers with anything smaller than 20000 tons, as even the lightest AI templates can be 17000. And, as stated earlier, your CA cruiser killer will be half a full-size BB, and one BB is worth more blockade points than two CAs (2 and a half, actually), so even your full-size BB gives you better coverage until the 1950s, at which point CAs don't take over, carriers do. And no, as far as I, or the people I've asked about this, are aware, there is no tonnage matching either, and even if there was since the large-caliber cruiser killer is typically under 32000 tons, at worst under 35000, and those are closer to true battlecruisers with their armor. The lighter 21000-27000 ton ships, if tonnage matching was a thing, would be more likely to be matched with ancient 12" ships. And your battle line is likely 45000-55000 tons without treaty, in any case. Think of these as Alaskas who had their 12" swapped for equal weights of 15" or 17" rather than Iowas. As for the reply to my PS, as I said, CAs are considered capital ships, so a mismatched CA/BC battle is a capital ship battle. So we have a battle that is simultaneously an overmatched battle and a capital ship battle. It follows that capital ship battles are the only mismatched battles CAs can participate in. Thus, you're effectively advocating for running away from capital ship battles. And if you want more BCs, then why don't you build more BCs? The large caliber cruiser killer concept both fulfills the raider hunter role and the BC requirements and, being a BC, fulfills sea control requirements at about the same cost as two 15000 ton colonial CAs (again, until the 1950s). Thus, not having enough cost is actually in favor of the large caliber cruiser killer. For the remaining points, if you have no CAs, then you will face BC versus CA battles pretty frequently, which are advantageous to you (and more advantageous than any CA versus CA battles). At the same time, the AI does not tend to cover multiple sea zones, they tend to dog-pile on one sea zone while leaving the rest with what are effectively screening forces. In other words, the worst thing that can happen is that you're fighting in two or three sea zones at the same time, not six or seven. In addition, more cruisers might be worth it if we get multiple raider battles a month, but multiple battles a month does not happen in Rule the Waves 3 and it would be pretty tiring if implemented, so I prefer not. In the current system, you are killing one cruiser a month at best. P.S: Yeah, the CL vs BC circumstances were slightly strange. I was China, I outclassed the Japanese fleet with a combination of older vessels, both BCs and BBs, and 17" BBs. So they basically rejected every battle where they can't do CL vs BC. But that was a light forces battle, which should nominally only have CAs maximum. However, since CAs and BCs share the same slot in the battle generator, this means fleet size BCs get involved. P.P.S: I've met with some of these people I've talked to about this, and we've come together to say that the 12000 ton post-BC CA is the literal worst ship in the game. Smaller CAs can kill raider CLs and AMCs on TP mode, but when we talk about cruiser killers we're talking about killing larger CAs. Ultimately, why I am fighting so hard here is to establish the problem first, before I make a proposal later to fix it All I see here is a lot of talk without a single ship design posted. |
|
|
|
Post by tendravina on Mar 2, 2024 3:57:21 GMT -6
Oh my sweet summer child, if you haven't seen those super-CAs I feel sorry for you because one day you will, and you will be screwed over. To be clear, you will be hunting no cruisers with anything smaller than 20000 tons, as even the lightest AI templates can be 17000. And, as stated earlier, your CA cruiser killer will be half a full-size BB, and one BB is worth more blockade points than two CAs (2 and a half, actually), so even your full-size BB gives you better coverage until the 1950s, at which point CAs don't take over, carriers do. And no, as far as I, or the people I've asked about this, are aware, there is no tonnage matching either, and even if there was since the large-caliber cruiser killer is typically under 32000 tons, at worst under 35000, and those are closer to true battlecruisers with their armor. The lighter 21000-27000 ton ships, if tonnage matching was a thing, would be more likely to be matched with ancient 12" ships. And your battle line is likely 45000-55000 tons without treaty, in any case. Think of these as Alaskas who had their 12" swapped for equal weights of 15" or 17" rather than Iowas. As for the reply to my PS, as I said, CAs are considered capital ships, so a mismatched CA/BC battle is a capital ship battle. So we have a battle that is simultaneously an overmatched battle and a capital ship battle. It follows that capital ship battles are the only mismatched battles CAs can participate in. Thus, you're effectively advocating for running away from capital ship battles. And if you want more BCs, then why don't you build more BCs? The large caliber cruiser killer concept both fulfills the raider hunter role and the BC requirements and, being a BC, fulfills sea control requirements at about the same cost as two 15000 ton colonial CAs (again, until the 1950s). Thus, not having enough cost is actually in favor of the large caliber cruiser killer. For the remaining points, if you have no CAs, then you will face BC versus CA battles pretty frequently, which are advantageous to you (and more advantageous than any CA versus CA battles). At the same time, the AI does not tend to cover multiple sea zones, they tend to dog-pile on one sea zone while leaving the rest with what are effectively screening forces. In other words, the worst thing that can happen is that you're fighting in two or three sea zones at the same time, not six or seven. In addition, more cruisers might be worth it if we get multiple raider battles a month, but multiple battles a month does not happen in Rule the Waves 3 and it would be pretty tiring if implemented, so I prefer not. In the current system, you are killing one cruiser a month at best. P.S: Yeah, the CL vs BC circumstances were slightly strange. I was China, I outclassed the Japanese fleet with a combination of older vessels, both BCs and BBs, and 17" BBs. So they basically rejected every battle where they can't do CL vs BC. But that was a light forces battle, which should nominally only have CAs maximum. However, since CAs and BCs share the same slot in the battle generator, this means fleet size BCs get involved. P.P.S: I've met with some of these people I've talked to about this, and we've come together to say that the 12000 ton post-BC CA is the literal worst ship in the game. Smaller CAs can kill raider CLs and AMCs on TP mode, but when we talk about cruiser killers we're talking about killing larger CAs. Ultimately, why I am fighting so hard here is to establish the problem first, before I make a proposal later to fix it All I see here is a lot of talk without a single ship design posted. I have two designs, a minimum large caliber cruiser killer, and a more maximal one (this one optimized for speed). So yeah, more armament that ultimately weighs about as much as a cruiser's, or rather only cruisers that have armament that weighs as much as a battlecruiser's have even the slightest competence Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by cheatereater on Mar 2, 2024 5:17:37 GMT -6
I have two designs, a minimum large caliber cruiser killer, and a more maximal one (this one optimized for speed). So yeah, more armament that ultimately weighs about as much as a cruiser's, or rather only cruisers that have armament that weighs as much as a battlecruiser's have even the slightest competence Great, thanks! But more importantly, what is the AI building? I checked my 1960 game, and the AI is getting at most 11x10" guns with 5" belts in their CAs, at around 17k tons, and that's late game tech with missiles and aircraft the dominant factor now. The CAs from the 30s in my game are already posted... I don't know why you think you know my games better than I do when I've literally posted the AI ship designs. The AI is barely building CAs when I check my 1934 save, they're focused on BCs! Things vary from game to game, so if the AI is building what are huge CAs in your games I'd like to see the circumstances as I haven't seen them in any of mine. Of course you have to adjust for what the AI builds. No design is perfect for every game, I posted the AI designs to give examples of what you can face.
Those designed ships have atrocious belt armor, not enough to stand up in a battle line like you said (IMO)... 7" is not going to cut it! Neither can they stand up against bigger BCs, just to check 14" Q0 guns can pen that at 25k yards while a 17" Q+1 gun has to close to ~20k yards to pen 12", a pretty typical BC belt; those 15" Q0 guns will have to get closer than 15k yards. That's a narrow focus for a ship that's liable to get thrown in with big enemy BCs for a cruiser action.
|
|
|
|
Post by tendravina on Mar 2, 2024 6:22:26 GMT -6
I have two designs, a minimum large caliber cruiser killer, and a more maximal one (this one optimized for speed). So yeah, more armament that ultimately weighs about as much as a cruiser's, or rather only cruisers that have armament that weighs as much as a battlecruiser's have even the slightest competence Great, thanks! But more importantly, what is the AI building? I checked my 1960 game, and the AI is getting at most 11x10" guns with 5" belts in their CAs, at around 17k tons, and that's late game tech with missiles and aircraft the dominant factor now. The CAs from the 30s in my game are already posted... I don't know why you think you know my games better than I do when I've literally posted the AI ship designs. The AI is barely building CAs when I check my 1934 save, they're focused on BCs! Things vary from game to game, so if the AI is building what are huge CAs in your games I'd like to see the circumstances as I haven't seen them in any of mine. Of course you have to adjust for what the AI builds. No design is perfect for every game, I posted the AI designs to give examples of what you can face.
Those designed ships have atrocious belt armor, not enough to stand up in a battle line like you said (IMO)... 7" is not going to cut it! Neither can they stand up against bigger BCs, just to check 14" Q0 guns can pen that at 25k yards while a 17" Q+1 gun has to close to ~20k yards to pen 12", a pretty typical BC belt; those 15" Q0 guns will have to get closer than 15k yards. That's a narrow focus for a ship that's liable to get thrown in with big enemy BCs for a cruiser action.
The trouble is that CAs also get thrown with enemy BCs often enough that it is worth giving any prospective ship the best chances you could. Think of it as giving them the best chances to survive at an economical cost. This is because trade-offs means that you can't get a cruiser killer role on a fleet sized BC, namely speed and cost versus armor and survivability (which comes with tonnage, among other things). But both roles benefit from large-caliber weapons. Also there is an error in the 15-inch design; you should always have the highest level of TPS (in this case 4), as this prevents it from getting sunk |
|
