|
|
Post by blarglol on Feb 26, 2024 19:08:05 GMT -6
Question for the rest of you - do you always transition older vessels to oil? The benefits are increased range, no need for stokers and thus no potential fatigue and the resulting slowdowns, but you lose the designed protection of the coal bunkers. They sometimes take shells that would otherwise do serious damage internally. I'm always hesitant to lose that. Anyone else?
|
|
|
|
Post by eaterofsuns on Feb 27, 2024 10:14:48 GMT -6
The generic but easy answer is that it depends. I tend to keep KEs coal fired forever; I'm probably directly responsible for kicking off the environmental movement early by keeping smoke belching 1899 KE hulls running for ~70 years.
I don't find the coal protection outweighs the rapid improvements in armor tech that happen around the same time; Personally I'd rather not have a shell penetrate at all than hope the bunkers tank the hit.
For actual useful designs it really depends on other refit needs. Naval limitation treaty environments are one likely place to want to eke out a few extra tons. Early CV conversions are another obvious choice, they will be in the yard for a long time anyway and probably need the extra speed or reduced weight. Sometimes there may also be value in retaining coal fired ships for nations who are in danger of loosing access to oil in wartime. Other than those edge cases I would probably want to retire coal burners and replace with a better ship entirely if possible.
|
|
ule
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by ule on Feb 27, 2024 15:24:51 GMT -6
Protected cruisers. If the budget is there I tend to prefer older CLs over KEs for the colonial and trade protection(against surface threats) roles as IMO they are overall more versatile and survivable if forced into combat. With an 1890s start these ships tend to accumulate, especially until the current update as for ca. 1890-1897 protected cruisers were my go to design for CAs as well. This way you get a second life out of them after they cease to be effective in frontline roles. For a protected cruiser the protection of the bunkers is more important than for other ships. And the way I use them in the decade or so they stick around after oil is generally available an engine refit does not make much sense costwise anyway. Sometimes older destroyers also stay around for TP to fill out the numbers without engine upgrade.
Most other ships I design to be reasonably survivable with or without the coal bunkers, so there is no advantage to keep them on coal if the ship is worth keeping.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Feb 28, 2024 1:32:02 GMT -6
I'd refit my Bs (and early BBs) with oil if I had the money in the budget, they wouldn't interfere with BB/BC construction and I felt like giving them a chance to earn more battle stars for museum ship status. CAs I'd pretty much have to refit with oil since all I've got are the legacy CAs and replacements aren't planned until superimposed turrets are available. CLs, specifically protected cruisers, I don't refit with oil since RTW2 had them vulnerable when converted to oil firing, although as of the time of this writing I couldn't find anything to suggest the trend continued or not into RTW3. DDs aren't worth refitting with oil since early DDs are built within a year, barring delays, so it ain't economical to take a year to refit some <1100 DD when ya could just base an oil firing DD off some coal powered model and build them within a year.
Long story short, no I don't refit all my older ships to oil firing, just the battleships and armoured cruisers. The protected cruisers stick to coal fired boilers even when given new steam turbines and are relegated to colonial duty while DDs are sent to the colonies and scrapped as soon as they become obsolete.
|
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on Mar 5, 2024 4:01:32 GMT -6
Oil not having as much slowdowns is such an advantage that once I unlock oil I stick with it expect with KE. Any older ship that get an engine rebuild do also get oil, the extra protection of coal may help in ships with obsolete armor, but slowing down/ not being able to follow the battle action are imo much dangerous results.
|
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Mar 5, 2024 15:50:56 GMT -6
Oil not having as much slowdowns is such an advantage that once I unlock oil I stick with it expect with KE. Any older ship that get an engine rebuild do also get oil, the extra protection of coal may help in ships with obsolete armor, but slowing down/ not being able to follow the battle action are imo much dangerous results. This is a big reason. Its a 2 point speed even if you don't change the max. KE are meh on changing as new builds aren't too expensive per boat but per fleet is bit harder. You may need new ones for more ASW deckspace if you didnt build higher tonnage in the first place. An 1890 TP at 600 or 800 tons is fine until you want both sets of depth charge launchers which takes 900 tons. More weight is available at 1100 or 1200 tons which is more than needed in 1890 when no one has even invented subs. However... I have in some games in RTW2 days as Japan been so short on warships that B dreadnaughts spewing coal were converted to flattops belching coal into a WW2 era surprise attack on the Russians at Port Arthur... still belching thick black coal smoke out their funnels. Do remember the game now lets you combine repairs with rebuilds. So possibly you can do the change over after it got badly hurt. Though that badly hurt was likely in a war you want the ship to be sailing for. |
|
|
|
Post by blarglol on Mar 5, 2024 15:55:07 GMT -6
Oil not having as much slowdowns is such an advantage that once I unlock oil I stick with it expect with KE. Any older ship that get an engine rebuild do also get oil, the extra protection of coal may help in ships with obsolete armor, but slowing down/ not being able to follow the battle action are imo much dangerous results. This is a big reason. Its a 2 point speed even if you don't change the max. Wait...converting a coal-fired ship to oil automatically increases your top speed by two knots?? |
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Mar 5, 2024 19:38:13 GMT -6
This is a big reason. Its a 2 point speed even if you don't change the max. Wait...converting a coal-fired ship to oil automatically increases your top speed by two knots?? Let me rephrase Effective top speed, as the oil firing is immune to the 1 knot then a second knot penalty. Coal firing gets 1) after some time in battle at speed, "crates need cleaning" which is -1 knot 2) Stokers exhausted from -1 to -2 knots Oil firing never get the penalty. So after some time the oil firing is faster as the coal firing is 2 knots slower. At the fight start the top speeds are as listed on their design sheet. The coal firing will lose 1 then 2 knots of top speed to the grates clogged and then exhausted stokers. |
|
