|
Pirate Radar posted:25k. This is cool until the combat engine spawns us in a point-blank night battle.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 17:31
|
|
And already larger than any other ship being built anywhere in the world right now except the two other battleships we're building.
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:The funnels Do funnels block shots and interfere with performance? Or are they just cosmetic. Because if they actually affect performance I have to root for that design.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Do funnels block shots and interfere with performance? Or are they just cosmetic. Because if they actually affect performance I have to root for that design. They're just cosmetic. The game doesn't actually model the ships and their propulsion systems with that kind of complexity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
Also, for reference to real-world history, the planned and canceled 1920(-ish) South Dakota battleships had, per wikipedia, these relevant stats: 47,000 tons displacement 23 knot maximum speed 12 16" guns 16 6" guns 4 3" guns 2 torpedo tubes (lol) 8-13" belt armor 4.5-13.5" barbette armor (?) 5-18" turret armor 3.5-6" deck armor So, compared to the current set of proposed battleships, the South Dakotas would have been: more heavily gunned, the same speed, and comparably armored. But I have no clue what the all-or-nothing armor scheme is or what it does so who knows! The British planned N-3 class designed in 1920 is probably also comparable. 50,000 tons 23 knots 3x3 18" guns 8x 6" guns 6x 5" AA guns 6x torpedo tubes 13.5-15" belt armor 6-8" deck armor 15" barbettes 10-18" turret armor 15" conning tower armor Again, more heavily gunned than our current batch of designs, similar speed, maybe a touch more heavily armored. I'm guessing our tech is a little behind historical tech, probably because we're playing Russia instead of the US/UK? Arcturas fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Sep 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:So, compared to the current set of proposed battleships, the South Dakotas would have been: more heavily gunned, the same speed, and comparably armored. But I have no clue what the all-or-nothing armor scheme is or what it does so who knows! What all-or-nothing means is that you recognize that light or medium armor is pointless on a capital ship. You either armor a part of the ship enough to withstand enemy fire, or you don't armor it at all. Therefore, you design the ship so that there's an interior zone encased in armor; this zone contains the main gun magazines and propulsion rooms as well as whatever else you consider combat-essential. You make sure this zone is big enough that it can float on its own if it needs to. That way, if the enemy hits something else, the shells fly through or blow it away--but you don't care. And you haven't wasted weight on giving that part of the ship partial armor. In-game it means the ship is more resistant to flooding damage and can be lighter for the same effective armor coverage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
The Design Bureau was informed that they could save more weight and thus equip the Maximum Battleship with more armor. This alternative option is presented below: https://www.dropbox.com/s/n73175lc60hvmmj/Maximum%20BB%202.30d?dl=0 We were also informed that perhaps our recommendations were too expensive and infeasible. Bah, regardless we found it an interesting challenge to design a capital ship that does not weigh as much as our recent battleships. We have therefore came up with this design:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/bqxxgpqgsrvgqtl/Minimum%20BC.30d?dl=0 Her vitals are impenetrable to cruiser fire of all kinds and she is prepared for a long marathon in foreign stations. Due to bureaucratic obstruction this design's speed had to be built to go at 28 knots instead of the 27 knots as envisioned. We are sure she'll satisfy the requirements of misers in the legislature.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:I'm guessing our tech is a little behind historical tech, probably because we're playing Russia instead of the US/UK? Yes. Also we've had bad luck / not prioritizing turret tech so we're stuck with double mounts and that makes getting more than 8 to 10 guns incredibly weight intensive. The SoDaks used triple turrets in ABXY super firing mounts. 10 guns in 5 dual mounts has a similar weight to 12 in 4 triples once you start adding armor in any significant amount.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
I only have the first game but those real world specs are eye opening. I don’t think I’ve seen anything like that much armor in game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
All of these AoN designs, do we even have the tech for it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Grey provided a save, which the ship submissions are (or should be) using to submit designs. And yes, we got AoN armour in one of the last two updates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:I only have the first game but those real world specs are eye opening. I don’t think I’ve seen anything like that much armor in game. I don't have any of the games, but I think part of that is in the real world you have a little bit more fine-tuned control over armor thickness? Like you're not limited to the same belt armor thickness everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
A new design bureau has emerged! With two possible designs! The first is the Potemkin class of battleship. With a name like that, what could go wrong? This ship features an ideal balance of speed, firepower, and protection, with a robust zone of immunity against her own guns (13k to 28k yds), excellent speed for a battleship at 23 knots, and a shift away from useless 3" "tertiary guns" and instead covering every available square inch of deck with AA guns. With the threat of destroyer torpedo runs diminishing thanks to our own excellent destroyer screens, it makes sense to focus firepower instead on the new threat from the air.    The second design, the Bayan, is admittedly more expensive, and may be more risky, but is also potentially revolutionary. The first thing to note is her speed: at 29 knots, she will be among the fastest ships afloat, of any class. She's also the fastest cruiser of any type on earth. Her eight 16" guns make her the best armed battlecruiser in the world, though her secondary armament and AA suite are less robust. In short, she is the ultimate cruiser killer, able to win a fight against any cruiser, anywhere, anytime (as long as it is in our territorial waters), and she can easily run from any ship or group of ships that might threaten her. With a long-range zone of immunity against 16" guns, and an impressive zone of immunity against anything smaller, she can take her place on the periphery of a fleet action as well, using her incredible speed to keep enemy battleships within her zone of immunity, and destroying them with long range gunfire. A ship with this speed and armament will be useful right to the very end of our timeline.   
bewbies fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Sep 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:The funnels Every design I've submitted has had non-centralised funnels  SPEAKIN OV  https://drive.google.com/open?id=1owHc7xX__WQXeX7tlHfXG6GmCkS4fPpw DA CURRENT LOT O SHIPZ IZ GUD, BUT SOME GROTZ POINTED OUT DEY DON'T AV ENOUGH DAKKA. SO FER DA PRISE OF DA 6" ARRAYZ, WE PREZENTZ DA DESIGN FER DA MAKSIMAL'NYA OTSENKA ORUZHIYA. WIF A MASSIVE 12 GUNZ BROADYSIDE, IT KAN PUT DA DAKKAZ ON DA OVA GITZ LIKE DEY AINT NUZINK. AN ONCE SHE'Z FRU WIF EM, DEY WON'T BE!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
 https://www.dropbox.com/s/nnwbtk0sn59yekt/Imperskiy%20Skopa.30d?dl=0 The Imperskiy Skopa is a fast, well protected Battlecruiser. She makes 29 knots, which is either the fastest, or tied for fastest ship in the running. She has medium range and normal accommodations, making her capable of traversing the world in the event of an unscheduled war. Her armor protects her from it's own guns from 26,000 to 18,000 yards. Her gun layout is boring, but proven and effective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 03:47
|
|
|
I enjoy the small shot of how we have no money in the corner of the extremely expensive BC's design.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
We clearly need a 11-inch battlecruiser armored for 6-inch gunfire for maximum Scrooge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
Danann posted:Gonna give this shipbuilding thing a shot: Veloxyll posted:IT'S BNEEN A ZOGGIN LONG DAY OKAY. Pirate Radar posted:
Danann posted:The Design Bureau was informed that they could save more weight and thus equip the Maximum Battleship with more armor. This alternative option is presented below: bewbies posted:A new design bureau has emerged! With two possible designs! Veloxyll posted:Every design I've submitted has had non-centralised funnels Infidelicious posted:
So many bad choices.....
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
Also you can't name something below 70,000-80,000 tons the Maximum Battleship. Unless we have to grease the sides so it can get through the Panama Canal it isn't a Maximum Battleship yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 05:21
|
|
|
Going to put my vote in the Minimum BC.Night10194 posted:Also you can't name something below 70,000-80,000 tons the Maximum Battleship. Unless we have to grease the sides so it can get through the Panama Canal it isn't a Maximum Battleship yet. Clearly we're being limited by the Kiel Canal here. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 06:00
|
|
|
Zherebetz?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
aaaaaaaa stop making ships without conning tower armor. the game does not recognize your genius and your ship will literally stop working the moment any shell of any caliber hits it...
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
I really wish I could support one of the BC builds, but they're either going to explode at first contact, bankrupt us, or both. So I have to support the next logical choice, Potemkin. I just wish those secondaries were in turrets, for looks alone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 07:37
|
|
|
sloshmonger posted:I really wish I could support one of the BC builds, but they're either going to explode at first contact, bankrupt us, or both. So I have to support the next logical choice, Potemkin. I just wish those secondaries were in turrets, for looks alone. Same
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 08:24
|
|
|
A suggestion – although this will probably slow the pace of the thread down, and also reduce the chance for Goon hilarity... Is it worth after the design submission phase having a review/refinement phase so that things can be tweaked before ships go to a final vote? I worry I'm doing a similar thing to whoever the guy going on about non-optimum play was, but the omission of coning tower armor on most of the ships seems like something that should be fixed. Another option for design by committee, would be to do a vote for each element of a BB so we end up with some kind of consensus good ship.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 09:16
|
|
|
Zip! posted:A suggestion – although this will probably slow the pace of the thread down, and also reduce the chance for Goon hilarity... Nah. We get our error checking through having alternate designs. There are solid designs in this contest, they're not ALL Paper Coning Tower designs
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 09:35
|
|
|
Where's the fun in that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 09:35
|
|
|
Potemkin
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 12:40
|
|
|
MAXIMUM BATTLESHIP 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
Kremovyy
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 13:23
|
|
|
Imperskiy Skopa
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 13:34
|
|
|
Potemkin
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 13:37
|
|
|
Minimum Battlecruiser
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 14:47
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Also, for reference to real-world history, the planned and canceled 1920(-ish) South Dakota battleships had, per wikipedia, these relevant stats: Keep in mind that armor in RtW is kind of abstracted. In real life, changes in armor technology improved the performance of a given thickness of armor. This is obviously really annoying to model, so what the model does is that armor inches are generic and not dependent on technology. Technology only reduces weight of armor, so that you can add more thickness for the same tonnage, which does a good job simulating superior technology. However, when you go to compare to real armor, the thicknesses don't match. For instance, 10.5" of Krupp cemented armor is roughly equivalent to 12" of the earlier Harvey armor - so if you're comparing a real ship that uses KCA or STS or any of the later armor developments, its performance would be represented in game by a much thicker armor plate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
Potemkin
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Keep in mind that armor in RtW is kind of abstracted. In real life, changes in armor technology improved the performance of a given thickness of armor. This is obviously really annoying to model, so what the model does is that armor inches are generic and not dependent on technology. Technology only reduces weight of armor, so that you can add more thickness for the same tonnage, which does a good job simulating superior technology. This was true in RtW, but in RtW2 the game does model armor quality, not just weight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 16:37
|
|
|
Potemkin
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
What is it with those 3-inch tertiary batteries? That's literally dead weight at this point. Torpedo ranges have outpaced the effective range of 3-inch guns, so you can't even use them to beat off destroyers or MTBs effectively anymore. Just ditch that crap and use the weight to pile on AA mounts already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:This was true in RtW, but in RtW2 the game does model armor quality, not just weight. oh nice, i didn't realize it changed. i still have RTW1 because im cheap. is rtw2 good now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Magni posted:What is it with those 3-inch tertiary batteries? That's literally dead weight at this point. Torpedo ranges have outpaced the effective range of 3-inch guns, so you can't even use them to beat off destroyers or MTBs effectively anymore. Just ditch that crap and use the weight to pile on AA mounts already. Provided they're put in turrets instead of casemates, 3-inch tertiaries can get converted to DP mounts pretty early and give you decent heavy AA capacity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
Magni posted:What is it with those 3-inch tertiary batteries? That's literally dead weight at this point. Torpedo ranges have outpaced the effective range of 3-inch guns, so you can't even use them to beat off destroyers or MTBs effectively anymore. Just ditch that crap and use the weight to pile on AA mounts already. Single mount 3" is the first DP Heavy AA caliber you get. It's also like 150T for 24 of them, which isn't a significant amount of weight in terms of gaining armor or speed or even additional ammunition. Light AA only fires at planes directly attacking that vessel, HAA and MAA fire at planes attacking the entire formation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 19:11
|
|