|
|
Post by kriegsmeister on Apr 6, 2024 16:14:51 GMT -6
Since the minor fiasco with the 1.00.37 "fix" to prevent CA from using the protected deck armor scheme, and its subsequent reversion in 1.00.40, much has been debated about the various cruiser types and improvements. Years ago for RTW2 I had put forward a suggestion on breaking down the 3 cruiser Types (CL, CA, BC) into a further 5/6 groups (C, CL, AC, BC, CA, CC) to better reflect historical cruiser developments. I'd like to revisit this debate with further arguments for the inclusion of these new design parameters in order to better replicate history and remove some kinks and unnecessary limitations in game.
First a quick review of the design limits currently and what I would like to see them changed to.
CL - Max 8000 Tons (Increases to 10000 in 1920s, and 12000 in 1940s) - Any number of 6in guns, or with the protected cruiser armor scheme max of 2x 7-9in guns in either 2x single or 1 dual turret, or a single gun up 13in - Max 4" Belt armor with 6in guns, 3" with larger guns
- No speed max CA
- 19900T; Any # 10in Guns; Any Speed; 9.5" Belt Armor
- 26000T; Any # 10in Guns; Any Speed; 7.5" Belt Armor
- 12000T; 6x 11in Guns in Any # Turrets; Any Speed; 7.5" Belt Armor
- 26000T; 7x Any sized Guns in 2x Turrets; 22kts; 6.5" Belt Armor
- 10000T; 7x Any sized Guns in 2x Turrets; Any Speed; 6.5" Belt Armor BC - Min 10100 Tons - Any number of guns 11in or larger (10in if 9.5" Belt or lower)
- Max Belt armor is time period dependent and correlates with speed before being considered a (Fast) Battleship.
C - Protected Cruiser - Same as current game CL's from 1890-1906ish, however limited to only protected cruiser armor scheme and no ability to increase beyond 8000T, nor get the tech unlocks for twin and triple turrets. Basically just splitting off early protected cruisers from later CL in the same vane as the separation between B and BB - Max 8000 Tons
- Any number of 6in guns, or with the protected cruiser armor scheme max of 2x 7-9in guns in either 2x single or 1 dual turret, or a single gun up 13in
- Max 3" Belt armor (I'd tie belt thickness increase with the tonnage increase of CL's, therefore C do not get it)
CL - Light Cruiser - Again, mostly the same same as the current CL after the 1906 tech, but would only apply to cruisers with non protected cruiser ships. Additionally all later unlocks such as increased tonnage, twin and triple turrets would only apply to CL's and not C. - Max 8000 Tons, increasing to 10000 and 12000 Tons in later decades
- Any number of 6in guns in single turrets. Twin AY can be used however cannot be combined with superfiring B and X until the "Improved twin turrets" tech unlocking twin guns for CL
- Max 3" Belt Armor, increasing to 4" and 5" in respect with tonnage increases CA - Heavy Cruisers - These would be off shoots of Light cruisers as seen historically, unlocking with a tech around 1917 called "Medium guns on Light Cruisers" or something similar. They would use the same battle generator logic as CL's and utilize pretty much all related technologies
- Max 10000 Tons, increasing to 15000 and 20000 tons in the same years as CL tonnage increases - Any number 8in guns in single turrets, would not be able to use the AY exception as CL's but would still unlock twin and triples with the same technologies - Max 4" Belt Armor, increase to 6" with 15000 ton, no further increase for 20000 Tons AC - Armored Cruisers - Practically the same as CA's in the current game but giving them a smaller max tonnage and eliminating the special case tonnage, belt, and speed rules to carry large guns. Only other big change would be that they are treated as capital ships on par with B and BC for treaty limitations and the battle generator.
- Max 16000 Tons - Historically, no armored cruiser built before the Invincible-class exceeded this displacement. Would also neatly fit in the true full load displacement of the Panzershiffe. - Max 2x centerline turrets of any caliber, any # of wing turrets (primary or secondary) up to 8in's - No armored cruisers had wing guns greater than 8in bar a few British cruisers with hexagonal single 9in (which is effectively just worst than 2x twin turrets), Centerline turrets can be triples but not quads
- Max 8" Belt armor, other than some really old cruisers with iron or compound armor, no ship really exceeded 8" of armor, and most still were around 6" BC - Battlecruisers - No changes here CC - Large Cruisers - I don't necessarily see a big need for this type as a separate group, but I do see merit in it. Basically this would cover the various "super" cruisers and 2nd-rate fast battleships like the Alaska's, Dunkerque's, Scharnhorst's (more like the O and P designs), and Kirov missile cruisers when the Battleship and battlecruisers merge into the fast battleships over 40000 tons and you want something in between those and your heavy cruisers. I normally build such ships just as a BC, though I also see could validity for increasing AC tonnage to produce these ships or making them their own separate classification.
- Max 30000 Tons - Max 14in guns - Max 12" Belt Armor
All of these changes are based on what I see as a more historical timeline and more accurate representation of the ships actually built throughout history. The big changes are the split of the Armored (AC) and Heavy (CA) Cruisers, more historical and sensible limitations to Armored Cruisers, show the proper evolution of the Protected Cruiser (C) into the Light (CL) and Heavy (CA) Cruisers, and lastly introduce the Large Cruiser (CC) to fill in the gaps between massive Super/Fast Battleships and Heavy Cruisers.
The division of AC and CA is probably the most important, while physical characteristics overlapped, the comparison to other contemporary ships and intended roles were quite different. Armored Cruisers of the 1890's where generally equal to or less than the tonnage of contemporary battleships sacrificing armor and firepower for speed and range, they were intended to either hunt down and crush (Un)Protected Cruisers raiding friendly merchants, but also serve in the battleline which they proved quite apt for the job in in the Spanish-American and Russo-Japanese wars. Heavy Cruisers on the other hand where an outgrowth of Light Cruisers of the 1910's which where intended to scout and screen the battleline but not directly fight in it because they are comparatively tiny in regards to their contemporary battlehships, which typically outweighed them by a factor of 3x or more. Light cruisers typically had 5 or 6in guns and the development of the Hawkins and Furutaka classes with 7.5 and 8in guns was merely an upgrade to give them the advantage for screening force engagements. Things get muddied with the Washington and London Treaties since these became the largest and strongest ships the major naval powers could build making them de-facto battleline units in some cases like the old Armored Cruisers, but when true battleships and aircraft carriers are present they are relegated to their true intended purpose of scouting and screening.
The other big change to AC is capping the size of them and removing the special rule stipulations for mounting guns larger than 10in. Simply put there were exactly 0x Armored cruisers built larger than ~16000 tons, 0x true Armored Cruisers mounted more than 4x 10-12in guns (Panzerschiffe being an offshoot), and only a minor handful had armor thicker than 8". Dropping the design constraints to this level removes the ability to design ships with +8x9 or 10in guns that only existed as very early designs for a handful of nations which were thrown out after the Invincible-class were put to sea. The Role of the Armored Cruiser was completely supplanted by the Battlecruiser, and it should be represented as such in game like Dreadnoughts replacing the Pre-Dreads, and Light Cruisers replacing Protected Cruisers. Armored cruisers will have a bit of a life extension under the guise of Tsukuba and Panzerschiffe types and without the hinderance of tonnage, speed, or armor restrictions they currently have. While the Pocket Battleship design would be slightly ahistorical being built much earlier than in real life, I think this is an acceptable tradeoff as they would still be much more limited than a true battlecruiser that has another turret or 2 so not attractive options except for exceptionally cash-strapped or treaty restricted nations.
Lastly, the introduction of Super/Large Cruisers. I'd argue that the first "cruiser-killer" type ship is the Dunkerque-class as initial development was supposed to counter Italian Heavy cruisers and later the German Panzershiffe. As built they were a only 2/3 the displacement of modern battleships and the 13in guns not fairing well against the 15 and 16in guns of other nations, making them 2nd rate battleships (pretty darn similar to the design philosophy of Armored cruisers and in very similar proportions between them and their contemporary Pre-dreadnoughts). The Japanese B-65 -class and American Alaska-class follow along the same suit, and arguably the German Scharnhorst-class however with their displacement and armor make them more of undergunned battleships. These ships all sought to fill the gap created by the treaty system to build more economical ships to defeat the numerous treaty-cruisers, however they never really got a chance to shine for a multitude of reasons. Honestly, I'm 50/50 on whether they should be their own separate classification, or just raise the size, caliber and armor limits for Armored Cruisers in the same vane as the Light and Heavy cruisers. Or really it wouldn't be terrible to just forgo them altogether and continue building such ships as small BC. My argument for them, is really just the nice line of AC - > BC - > CC for large cruiser development, but that's not a very compelling case.
All-in-all, I think this would be great for the game. Gets rid of some of the ahistoricalness, makes ships like the Hawkins and Furutaka-class cruisers compelling, and streamlines a lot of armored cruiser designs and its special rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by attemptingsuccess on Apr 6, 2024 22:04:57 GMT -6
I really like this suggestions and it would really help to make heavy cruisers in particular a lot more viable. I think that the CC class is somewhat redundant and I think a better idea is to extend Armored Cruisers sometime in the 30s to allow for them, I think it would be interesting to still allow armored cruisers to exist in their current form as a lighter battlecruiser with it eventually incorporating Alaskas, Dunkerques, and Scharnhorst, but I could see the validly of separating them into a separate class or making them part of the battlecruiser class. I already build small battlecruisers late game to hunt AI large armored cruisers.
I disagree with the choice of preventing Armored Cruisers from having 9 inch wing guns like on the Blucher and Edgar Quinet. Those ships had a hex layout of twin 9 inch gun turrets for a total of 12, and were quite notably built.
Also, I think it is worth mentioning that this is an alt history game, so I think allowing players to explore a world in which the Armored cruisers concept resurfaced as a sort of intermediary between the Battlecruisers skyrocketing displacement and the Heavy Cruiser's heavy screening role, of course the question is: Is is worth it when it can run into a Battlecruiser which it can't kill? Historically the Dutch thought about potentially building a armored cruiser with 29 knots and 9 9.4 inch guns but it was rejected for having insufficient protection.
I love this suggestion and I really hope its implemented tho.
|
|
|
|
Post by tendravina on Apr 7, 2024 1:51:07 GMT -6
Since the minor fiasco with the 1.00.37 "fix" to prevent CA from using the protected deck armor scheme, and its subsequent reversion in 1.00.40, much has been debated about the various cruiser types and improvements. Years ago for RTW2 I had put forward a suggestion on breaking down the 3 cruiser Types (CL, CA, BC) into a further 5/6 groups (C, CL, AC, BC, CA, CC) to better reflect historical cruiser developments. I'd like to revisit this debate with further arguments for the inclusion of these new design parameters in order to better replicate history and remove some kinks and unnecessary limitations in game. First a quick review of the design limits currently and what I would like to see them changed to. I want to keep in mind these rules as we read the article. These rules should - Clarify and streamline rules, and remove edge cases and exceptions - Make sure that each class has a use CL - Max 8000 Tons (Increases to 10000 in 1920s, and 12000 in 1940s) - Any number of 6in guns, or with the protected cruiser armor scheme max of 2x 7-9in guns in either 2x single or 1 dual turret, or a single gun up 13in This is not exactly correct, it's 4x7" or 2x8" or 2x9". Also, you get to 14000 ton CLs once you unlock missile cruisers. CA - 19900T; Any # 10in Guns; Any Speed; 9.5" Belt Armor - 26000T; Any # 10in Guns; Any Speed; 7.5" Belt Armor - 12000T; 6x 11in Guns in Any # Turrets; Any Speed; 7.5" Belt Armor - 26000T; 7x Any sized Guns in 2x Turrets; 22kts; 6.5" Belt Armor- 10000T; 7x Any sized Guns in 2x Turrets; Any Speed; 6.5" Belt Armor BC - Min 10100 Tons - Any number of guns 11in or larger (10in if 9.5" Belt or lower)
- Max Belt armor is time period dependent and correlates with speed before being considered a (Fast) Battleship. Should also note that the minimum displacement for a 11-inch BC with less than 7 guns is 12100, and the minimum displacement for a 10-inch BC is 20000, as can be implied from the CA quote. That said, the more troubling issue is that the ship generator considers any "7x Any sized Guns in 2x Turrets" ship to be a CA, BC, or B, but if the ship has 10 - 10" or more belt armor - A speed between 24 and 30 knots You can fall into this trap that makes your ship invalid This is an incredibly important fix, regardless of cruiser classifications! C - Protected Cruiser - Same as current game CL's from 1890-1906ish, however limited to only protected cruiser armor scheme and no ability to increase beyond 8000T, nor get the tech unlocks for twin and triple turrets. Basically just splitting off early protected cruisers from later CL in the same vane as the separation between B and BB - Max 8000 Tons - Any number of 6in guns, or with the protected cruiser armor scheme max of 2x 7-9in guns in either 2x single or 1 dual turret, or a single gun up 13in - Max 3" Belt armor (I'd tie belt thickness increase with the tonnage increase of CL's, therefore C do not get it) Again, this is not exactly correct, it's 4x7" or 2x8" or 2x9". Also, you get to 14000 ton CLs once you unlock missile cruisers. CA - Heavy Cruisers - These would be off shoots of Light cruisers as seen historically, unlocking with a tech around 1917 called "Medium guns on Light Cruisers" or something similar. They would use the same battle generator logic as CL's and utilize pretty much all related technologies
- Max 10000 Tons, increasing to 15000 and 20000 tons in the same years as CL tonnage increases - Any number 8in guns in single turrets, would not be able to use the AY exception as CL's but would still unlock twin and triples with the same technologies - Max 4" Belt Armor, increase to 6" with 15000 ton, no further increase for 20000 Tons When comparing to CL increases, that's a bit extreme no? Especially when you only have 8-inch guns on there? You should also be aware to not make CLs obsolete, because this whole program is literally designed to make classes un-obsolete. And your proposal doesn't do that. You're also basically incentivizing players to stack ludicrous amounts of 8" quads, and 8" is a historical quirk in a game where this historicity is not held. The very often seen 15000 ton 9" treaty and, iirc the 18000 ton 10" treaty, implies that this proposal would contradict intentions elsewhere in the game. AC - Armored Cruisers - Practically the same as CA's in the current game but giving them a smaller max tonnage and eliminating the special case tonnage, belt, and speed rules to carry large guns. Only other big change would be that they are treated as capital ships on par with B and BC for treaty limitations and the battle generator.
- Max 16000 Tons - Historically, no armored cruiser built before the Invincible-class exceeded this displacement. Would also neatly fit in the true full load displacement of the Panzershiffe. Dropping the design constraints to this level removes the ability to design ships with +8x9 or 10in guns that only existed as very early designs for a handful of nations which were thrown out after the Invincible-class were put to sea. Now, if you thought my critique of CAs was bad, this is even worse. First of all, Blucher was 17500 tons, so that 18000 should be the maximum (and then, if you'd like, have this increased to 20000 and then 26000 because of the P-class). Second of all, I find the proposal to cut out historical designs because they weren't built pretty asinine, and thirdly it doesn't even address the elephant in the room for CAs; the designs you are trying to cut out are the balanced ones. In addition, the AC and CA rules mean that the only ships that can be built with 10-inch guns are either two-turret armored cruisers or 20000+ ton BCs, which... doesn't make that much sense in my opinion. The templates already existing in the game would deeply disagree as well, as well as anyone trying to replicate said historical designs. Plus you are introducing a huge void space by proceeding with such a plan, which is something that ought to be prevented. - Max 2x centerline turrets of any caliber, any # of wing turrets (primary or secondary) up to 8in's - No armored cruisers had wing guns greater than 8in bar a few British cruisers with hexagonal single 9in (which is effectively just worst than 2x twin turrets), Centerline turrets can be triples but not quads - Max 8" Belt armor, other than some really old cruisers with iron or compound armor, no ship really exceeded 8" of armor, and most still were around 6" You should absolutely not promote such reckless exception generation. The other reason why this discussion even exists is to streamline down ship classification and fill in gaps, especially because those ships tend to be the ones most likely to be unrefittable. CC - Large Cruisers - I don't necessarily see a big need for this type as a separate group, but I do see merit in it. Basically this would cover the various "super" cruisers and 2nd-rate fast battleships like the Alaska's, Dunkerque's, Scharnhorst's (more like the O and P designs), and Kirov missile cruisers when the Battleship and battlecruisers merge into the fast battleships over 40000 tons and you want something in between those and your heavy cruisers. I normally build such ships just as a BC, though I also see could validity for increasing AC tonnage to produce these ships or making them their own separate classification. CC refers to battlecruisers just like BC does (e.g. CC-1 was USS Lexington). What you're looking for is CB. In addition, the difference between a CB and a first-generation BC is going to get extremely murky, since they are basically the same ship but in different eras. You could also give them some bonuses against ACs and CAs if you want them. All of these changes are based on what I see as a more historical timeline and more accurate representation of the ships actually built throughout history. The big changes are the split of the Armored (AC) and Heavy (CA) Cruisers, more historical and sensible limitations to Armored Cruisers, show the proper evolution of the Protected Cruiser (C) into the Light (CL) and Heavy (CA) Cruisers, and lastly introduce the Large Cruiser (CC) to fill in the gaps between massive Super/Fast Battleships and Heavy Cruisers. As stated above, it is my opinion that the above do not present a "more accurate representation of the ships actually built throughout history", and in any case that should not even be a design consideration and theoretical design should take a priority. Just one of the proposals for ACs and CAs would make the game worse than it already is, both in terms of actual gameplay and in terms of confusion and complexity. This proposal does not make all of its classes useful, and it makes streamlining worse by multiple times. In other words, such a proposal would take us two steps back, without introducing any real fixes to the game, and should ought to be rejected out of hand. Also, I think it is worth mentioning that this is an alt history game, so I think allowing players to explore a world in which the Armored cruisers concept resurfaced as a sort of intermediary between the Battlecruisers skyrocketing displacement and the Heavy Cruiser's heavy screening role, of course the question is: Is is worth it when it can run into a Battlecruiser which it can't kill? Historically the Dutch thought about potentially building a armored cruiser with 29 knots and 9 9.4 inch guns but it was rejected for having insufficient protection. As for you, I think you're following a much better train of logic. This should definitely be allowed. |
|
|
|
Post by kriegsmeister on Apr 7, 2024 12:11:53 GMT -6
I really like this suggestions and it would really help to make heavy cruisers in particular a lot more viable. I think that the CC class is somewhat redundant and I think a better idea is to extend Armored Cruisers sometime in the 30s to allow for them, I think it would be interesting to still allow armored cruisers to exist in their current form as a lighter battlecruiser with it eventually incorporating Alaskas, Dunkerques, and Scharnhorst, but I could see the validly of separating them into a separate class or making them part of the battlecruiser class. I already build small battlecruisers late game to hunt AI large armored cruisers. I disagree with the choice of preventing Armored Cruisers from having 9 inch wing guns like on the Blucher and Edgar Quinet. Those ships had a hex layout of twin 9 inch gun turrets for a total of 12, and were quite notably built. Also, I think it is worth mentioning that this is an alt history game, so I think allowing players to explore a world in which the Armored cruisers concept resurfaced as a sort of intermediary between the Battlecruisers skyrocketing displacement and the Heavy Cruiser's heavy screening role, of course the question is: Is is worth it when it can run into a Battlecruiser which it can't kill? Historically the Dutch thought about potentially building a armored cruiser with 29 knots and 9 9.4 inch guns but it was rejected for having insufficient protection. I love this suggestion and I really hope its implemented tho.
Bluecher had 12x 21cm(8.3in) guns and the Edgar Quinet's carried 14x 194mm(7.6in) guns, the game typically represents bigger fractional sizes as higher quality rounded down, thats why in some game starts the british have a higher quality 13in and 7in guns. The only Armored cruisers to carry larger wing guns were the Duke of Edinburgh and Warrior-classes which had 6x1 9.2in in a Hexagonal layout. Probably a better rule in order to include those designs as well is rather than limit 2x turrets of guns 9in or larger, simply no more than 6x guns in any configuration, allowing for 2x3, 3x2, or in this case 6x1 designs. Since the minor fiasco with the 1.00.37 "fix" to prevent CA from using the protected deck armor scheme, and its subsequent reversion in 1.00.40, much has been debated about the various cruiser types and improvements. Years ago for RTW2 I had put forward a suggestion on breaking down the 3 cruiser Types (CL, CA, BC) into a further 5/6 groups (C, CL, AC, BC, CA, CC) to better reflect historical cruiser developments. I'd like to revisit this debate with further arguments for the inclusion of these new design parameters in order to better replicate history and remove some kinks and unnecessary limitations in game. First a quick review of the design limits currently and what I would like to see them changed to. I want to keep in mind these rules as we read the article. These rules should - Clarify and streamline rules, and remove edge cases and exceptions - Make sure that each class has a use This is my intent, but everyone's interpretation of history and what is useful can vary differently. We also have to keep in mind the balance between what the player is capable of designing and utilizing vs what the AI can. But as long as we can keep a healthy and productive debate process, we can work together to achieve positive goals CL - Max 8000 Tons (Increases to 10000 in 1920s, and 12000 in 1940s) - Any number of 6in guns, or with the protected cruiser armor scheme max of 2x 7-9in guns in either 2x single or 1 dual turret, or a single gun up 13in This is not exactly correct, it's 4x7" or 2x8" or 2x9". Also, you get to 14000 ton CLs once you unlock missile cruisers. My mistake, I don't use 7in guns or play into the missile age that often, so it slipped my mind CA - 19900T; Any # 10in Guns; Any Speed; 9.5" Belt Armor - 26000T; Any # 10in Guns; Any Speed; 7.5" Belt Armor - 12000T; 6x 11in Guns in Any # Turrets; Any Speed; 7.5" Belt Armor - 26000T; 7x Any sized Guns in 2x Turrets; 22kts; 6.5" Belt Armor- 10000T; 7x Any sized Guns in 2x Turrets; Any Speed; 6.5" Belt Armor BC - Min 10100 Tons - Any number of guns 11in or larger (10in if 9.5" Belt or lower)
- Max Belt armor is time period dependent and correlates with speed before being considered a (Fast) Battleship. Should also note that the minimum displacement for a 11-inch BC with less than 7 guns is 12100, and the minimum displacement for a 10-inch BC is 20000, as can be implied from the CA quote. That said, the more troubling issue is that the ship generator considers any "7x Any sized Guns in 2x Turrets" ship to be a CA, BC, or B, but if the ship has 10 - 10" or more belt armor - A speed between 24 and 30 knots You can fall into this trap that makes your ship invalid This is an incredibly important fix, regardless of cruiser classifications! Good catch, but with my proposed limitations for AC this would simplify everything greatly. 6x or less guns would keep it as either B or AC depending on armor/speed combination, 7x or more would make it BB or BC C - Protected Cruiser - Same as current game CL's from 1890-1906ish, however limited to only protected cruiser armor scheme and no ability to increase beyond 8000T, nor get the tech unlocks for twin and triple turrets. Basically just splitting off early protected cruisers from later CL in the same vane as the separation between B and BB - Max 8000 Tons - Any number of 6in guns, or with the protected cruiser armor scheme max of 2x 7-9in guns in either 2x single or 1 dual turret, or a single gun up 13in - Max 3" Belt armor (I'd tie belt thickness increase with the tonnage increase of CL's, therefore C do not get it) Again, this is not exactly correct, it's 4x7" or 2x8" or 2x9". Also, you get to 14000 ton CLs once you unlock missile cruisers. 4x7in should be included as it currently stands, but for these Protected cruisers, they would not get the option for increased tonnage like CL's, they are stuck at 8000Tons CA - Heavy Cruisers - These would be off shoots of Light cruisers as seen historically, unlocking with a tech around 1917 called "Medium guns on Light Cruisers" or something similar. They would use the same battle generator logic as CL's and utilize pretty much all related technologies
- Max 10000 Tons, increasing to 15000 and 20000 tons in the same years as CL tonnage increases - Any number 8in guns in single turrets, would not be able to use the AY exception as CL's but would still unlock twin and triples with the same technologies - Max 4" Belt Armor, increase to 6" with 15000 ton, no further increase for 20000 Tons When comparing to CL increases, that's a bit extreme no? Especially when you only have 8-inch guns on there? You should also be aware to not make CLs obsolete, because this whole program is literally designed to make classes un-obsolete. And your proposal doesn't do that. You're also basically incentivizing players to stack ludicrous amounts of 8" quads, and 8" is a historical quirk in a game where this historicity is not held. The very often seen 15000 ton 9" treaty and, iirc the 18000 ton 10" treaty, implies that this proposal would contradict intentions elsewhere in the game. Not really, the Italian and Japanese heavy cruisers actual full load displacements were around ~15000Tons as well as the American Baltimore-class after treaty restrictions were lifted. 20000 Tons adds in the Admiral Hipper- and Des Moines-classes. And currently in game, this is about the size needed to make balanced 8in armed cruisers. Also the argument should be made that the CL tonnage limitations are based off of Standard displacement, even though when designing ships we utilize full load displacement, and ought to be raised accordingly to be 12k, 15k, 18k to make actual historical designs.
And no, CA's as I propose would still be limited like CL's to only Triple turrets, unless you made them relatively slow or skimped on armor, it would be difficult to get more than 12x guns on ships with all the other required AA guns and other equipment.
That is the difficulty of the game, trying to theorize what would have been built throughout the 1920's and 30's without the treaty limitations. Historically, guns between 7-10in were not put on new designs after the launch of Dreadnought and the Invincible's, almost a decade until the Hawkins-class came about with their 7.5s, at the same time the US was building the Omaha's and as far as I'm aware didnt have any serious design studies for its successors until the treaty was concluded, and Japan had only just started working on the Furutaka's when the treaty was being negotiated.
I can see the Argument to allow 9in guns on CAs when displacement limit increases to 15000 tons, but I think 10in should still be limited to ACs, which further down i'll put forward an alternate suggestion to make such ships a little more viable.
AC - Armored Cruisers - Practically the same as CA's in the current game but giving them a smaller max tonnage and eliminating the special case tonnage, belt, and speed rules to carry large guns. Only other big change would be that they are treated as capital ships on par with B and BC for treaty limitations and the battle generator.
- Max 16000 Tons - Historically, no armored cruiser built before the Invincible-class exceeded this displacement. Would also neatly fit in the true full load displacement of the Panzershiffe. Dropping the design constraints to this level removes the ability to design ships with +8x9 or 10in guns that only existed as very early designs for a handful of nations which were thrown out after the Invincible-class were put to sea. Now, if you thought my critique of CAs was bad, this is even worse. First of all, Blucher was 17500 tons, so that 18000 should be the maximum (and then, if you'd like, have this increased to 20000 and then 26000 because of the P-class). Second of all, I find the proposal to cut out historical designs because they weren't built pretty asinine, and thirdly it doesn't even address the elephant in the room for CAs; the designs you are trying to cut out are the balanced ones. In addition, the AC and CA rules mean that the only ships that can be built with 10-inch guns are either two-turret armored cruisers or 20000+ ton BCs, which... doesn't make that much sense in my opinion. The templates already existing in the game would deeply disagree as well, as well as anyone trying to replicate said historical designs. Plus you are introducing a huge void space by proceeding with such a plan, which is something that ought to be prevented.
Yep, I misread the standard displacement rather than full load of the Bluecher when initially writing this up, I'd be fine with upping the maximum to 18000. And as I stated in the portion for the Large cruiser section, I'm not opposed to upping the tonnage and # of guns limit for Armored Cruisers. In our timeline the 9 and 10in guns went practically extinct after 1906, though for the alt-history of the game I should make adjustments to my suggestion for gameplay reasons, I already stated above upping the limit of Heavy cruisers to 9in. I don't think 10in on Heavy cruisers is reasonable but perhaps when armored cruisers get their first tonnage increase, the ability to mount any amount of 9-10in guns could be allowed, while still maintaining a maximum of 6x guns for anything larger until the final tonnage increase.
The templates already in-game are purely fictional, I'm not against the alternate history of them, but what I disapprove of is that they've taken precedence over actual historical designs.
- Max 2x centerline turrets of any caliber, any # of wing turrets (primary or secondary) up to 8in's - No armored cruisers had wing guns greater than 8in bar a few British cruisers with hexagonal single 9in (which is effectively just worst than 2x twin turrets), Centerline turrets can be triples but not quads - Max 8" Belt armor, other than some really old cruisers with iron or compound armor, no ship really exceeded 8" of armor, and most still were around 6" You should absolutely not promote such reckless exception generation. The other reason why this discussion even exists is to streamline down ship classification and fill in gaps, especially because those ships tend to be the ones most likely to be unrefittable.
The only armored cruiser designed and launched during the time period of the game with more than 8" of armor is the USS Maine (laid down 1889), with a 12" narrow belt, however, it was very quickly re-rated as a 2nd Rate Battleship. There are a few other even older ships with 10" but with the way the game designer works I think its perfectly fine to exclude them.
CC - Large Cruisers - I don't necessarily see a big need for this type as a separate group, but I do see merit in it. Basically this would cover the various "super" cruisers and 2nd-rate fast battleships like the Alaska's, Dunkerque's, Scharnhorst's (more like the O and P designs), and Kirov missile cruisers when the Battleship and battlecruisers merge into the fast battleships over 40000 tons and you want something in between those and your heavy cruisers. I normally build such ships just as a BC, though I also see could validity for increasing AC tonnage to produce these ships or making them their own separate classification. CC refers to battlecruisers just like BC does (e.g. CC-1 was USS Lexington). What you're looking for is CB. In addition, the difference between a CB and a first-generation BC is going to get extremely murky, since they are basically the same ship but in different eras. You could also give them some bonuses against ACs and CAs if you want them. Yep, you're right, got my codes mixed up. That is the weakest part of my suggestion and why I flip flop between making them their own thing, increasing the size cap on AC, or just forgoing it completely. All of these changes are based on what I see as a more historical timeline and more accurate representation of the ships actually built throughout history. The big changes are the split of the Armored (AC) and Heavy (CA) Cruisers, more historical and sensible limitations to Armored Cruisers, show the proper evolution of the Protected Cruiser (C) into the Light (CL) and Heavy (CA) Cruisers, and lastly introduce the Large Cruiser (CC) to fill in the gaps between massive Super/Fast Battleships and Heavy Cruisers. As stated above, it is my opinion that the above do not present a "more accurate representation of the ships actually built throughout history", and in any case that should not even be a design consideration and theoretical design should take a priority. Just one of the proposals for ACs and CAs would make the game worse than it already is, both in terms of actual gameplay and in terms of confusion and complexity. This proposal does not make all of its classes useful, and it makes streamlining worse by multiple times. In other words, such a proposal would take us two steps back, without introducing any real fixes to the game, and should ought to be rejected out of hand. This would absolutely be more historical: 1.) You simply cannot build ships like the Hawkins-class with the way current technologies line up, with my changes you would be able to. 2.) With the sole exception of a few scandanivian coast defence ships which were essentially modernized pre-dreadnoughts, NO ships from the major powers were built with 9-10in guns after 1906. 3.) Splitting the AC from CA is very historical due to their actual design and usage.
I highly disagree that that theoretical design should take priority, with the exception of the current 9-10in cruisers, every template is based on a historical design. All design paramenters and limitations of the diffierent categories of ships are based on actually built ships. Even with the protected armor cruiser scheme debate that made me renew my suggestion was incorrectly reported as a bug but reverted because of its historical usage. But again, I'm not dissing on the fictional stuff, its part of what makes this game great, I frequently play with the more templates mod, no aircraft mod, and have even done a Pokemon themed Campaign. If the actual map was affordably moddable, I've had plans to create a completely different continent structure with different fictional worlds. But ultimately, History is the basis of Alt-History, and for the base game, actual designs should be the priority.
I do not see how my suggestion adds more confusion or complexity, I've set a uniform design cap for Armored Cruisers rather than the half-dozen special case combinations which makes Panzershiffe and tsukubu type cruiser far more useful. I've made Heavy Cruisers more viable by using the Light cruiser battle generator logic which would limit their pairing against battlecruisers. If we wanted to really simplify and streamline the game to the extreme we could go with the the German naming convention where both Armored and Battlecruisers were called "Grosskreuzer" Large Cruiser so that we only have Small (Under 8000T) and Large (Over 8000T) cruisers. But that, imo, is boring
|
|
|
|
Post by dia on Apr 9, 2024 17:35:33 GMT -6
Personally I am in pretty strong agreement about separating light cruisers and protected cruisers as classes. I do feel like we need a a separate class for armored cruisers and heavy cruisers as well with the heavy cruiser being developed after the light cruiser and the ACs reaching a dead end in development like the B. Would also allow their battle generation behavior to change so it isn't just seeing older amored cruisers on the same level as what would be a proper heavy cruiser.
This doesn't really solve the issue of cruisers and the artificial distinction between light and heavy cruisers without treaties, but it would be a nice change.
|
|
