|
Dreamsicle posted:Thanks everyone, last question for now. I recall on an old RTW LP BCs more or less replaced CAs since BCs counted for Cruiser actions. Is that still the case? It might explain the Baltimore sized CAs in 1905. BCs and CAs are treated similarly for cruiser actions but the scenario generator always accounts for tonnage to some degree so you might face 3x 13,000 heavy armored cruisers with your 27,000 ton BC. You're still likely to win if tech levels are similar, though. Building CAs (as in, heavy cruisers) makes sense if either A) you have a treaty and can't get tonnage big enough for a decent BC or B) you need a lot of ships fast and can't afford the longer construction times of heavy ships or C) later in the game, as the role of cruisers shifts from medium-range all purpose surface combatant to heavy anti-aircraft escort that can keep up with carriers. In the case of the former two, you have no choice. In the latter case, AA doesn't require that much tonnage and you're not expecting to fight surface actions as much, so you can save on an important role and broaden your AA umbrella at the same time with smaller CAs.
|
#
¿
May 21, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
Would anybody be interested in playing a Succession LP of RTW3? Each player would have 5/10/however long makes sense years of unquestioned authority on naval policy unless they lost a war or retired early.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2023 01:34
|
|