could you give me historical example of BC, that was significantly faster than BB? (the same generation, of course)
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
could you give me historical example of BC, that was significantly faster than BB? (the same generation, of course)
Well like I said, during WWII the Battleship and the Battlecruiser more or less merged int a single class and the Bismarck was actually the first type of ship to more or less do this. To answer your question we can look at Dunkerque which reached 32 knots in trial and was commissioned in '37 while Bismark reached 30 knots and was commissioned a full four years later.
My issue with HOI2 and BCs are that most of the ships for any country at the start of the 1936 campaign are either "Basic" or "Great War" and it is in these earlier designs that the speed of the BC was greater than any same generation BB.
The fact is that following Jutland, where mainly BCs were lost, navies in WWII looked for a way to hybrid the two. Hood was the last true BC and she was sunk by a ship which was a result of successfully merging the two types. Bismark had great speed and great armaments.
My issue with HOI2 and BCs are that most of the ships for any country at the start of the 1936 campaign are either "Basic" or "Great War" and it is in these earlier designs that the speed of the BC was greater than any same generation BB.
The fact is that following Jutland, where mainly BCs were lost, navies in WWII looked for a way to hybrid the two. Hood was the last true BC and she was sunk by a ship which was a result of successfully merging the two types. Bismark had great speed and great armaments.
Naval experts here fine 
What about the reccon cruisers Germany had projected, are regular light cruisers a good representation of them?
What about the reccon cruisers Germany had projected, are regular light cruisers a good representation of them?
Are you talking about the projected "P Class"? because the specs on those are very interesting indeed
Dunno exactly, too less information that I have on that one, but I know there was some sort of reccon cruiser class on the todo list, pretty fast and more or less lightly armed (Spähkreuzer), maybe in todays standards it would come close to beeing a frigate
BCs might have a role for minors because they keep at range and thus wont take damage against cruisers but any grand fleet shouldnt use BCs. perhaps if ur in multiplayer and u kno ur fighting a zerg, then they might be good becuz, again, the range.
but really, y not just get BBs? its not that BCs are bad, its just that that Q cant be answered MOST of the time
but really, y not just get BBs? its not that BCs are bad, its just that that Q cant be answered MOST of the time
In this scenario BC are superior to BB. In multiple games I have come around to Iwo Jimas point. Can't build a BB in 10 months as with gearing bonuses you can spam out alot of BC and if you have them early enough you can get 3 BC SAGs by 1940 and smash the RN with them if you have up to date doctrines etc.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?482581-Plan-Z.-Uber-Kriegsmarine-Pt-III-AAR
Its not to hard smashing the RN in a fair fight using BB but its even easier using BC.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?482581-Plan-Z.-Uber-Kriegsmarine-Pt-III-AAR
Its not to hard smashing the RN in a fair fight using BB but its even easier using BC.
Last edited:
Not to get included in the above fleet discussion too much, i'll say this.
BB's, while great, have very limited uses due to unacceptable build time. I only build them when i know my naval supremacy is already secured, and want some more fun / naval bombardment at the cost of few thousand ICd per ship, which when sunk cannot be replaced before the war is over. In my current campaign BB's are beign build, because i've had 3 CAGs and 3 Cruizergs sink every single ship that doesnt belong to US or UK (everyone else was annexed or in axis) and Germans have 700 something divisions, meaning that any serious D-Day plan requires enormous amounts of bombardment.
It leaves BC vs CA only.
BC has much worse visibility / detection ratio
BC has almost / over (depending on the model) twice as long build time as CA
CA + CL with FC have the same range.
BC has 1 more attachment slot
BC has better shore bombard stat
BC has significantly better attack and defense.
Now which of the above truly matter?
8 CA 8 CL 2 CVL fleets rolled over Japan Navy in just a few months
BB's, while great, have very limited uses due to unacceptable build time. I only build them when i know my naval supremacy is already secured, and want some more fun / naval bombardment at the cost of few thousand ICd per ship, which when sunk cannot be replaced before the war is over. In my current campaign BB's are beign build, because i've had 3 CAGs and 3 Cruizergs sink every single ship that doesnt belong to US or UK (everyone else was annexed or in axis) and Germans have 700 something divisions, meaning that any serious D-Day plan requires enormous amounts of bombardment.
It leaves BC vs CA only.
BC has much worse visibility / detection ratio
BC has almost / over (depending on the model) twice as long build time as CA
CA + CL with FC have the same range.
BC has 1 more attachment slot
BC has better shore bombard stat
BC has significantly better attack and defense.
Now which of the above truly matter?
8 CA 8 CL 2 CVL fleets rolled over Japan Navy in just a few months
What types of CA and CL do you use for making Cruizergs? I've built them using CA II and CL IV with FC and I built late game ones using CL VI IIRC. They are good at tearing apart some fleets but struggled vs large carrier fleets and when I reloaded my German game as a post occupation USA game they got torn apart by the German BC fleets. I may have got the fleet composition wrong though so what do you build? IMG I have lvl IV CA and CL so cruizergs don't seem to be an option ATM.
CL range for each model is, as follows : 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 26
CA range for each model is, as follows : 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 30, 30, 30 (one more model than CL, nuclear CA)
There are three types of ships when it comes to range, carriers, capitals and screens. Fleet as a whole tries to stay at 80% range of the worst ship from the highest fleet type. CA II, CA IV, CL VII fleet will stay at 80% of CA II's range. CV II, CA VIII, CL V will stay at 80% of CV's range.
There are two types of FC and two models of each type. Capital FC's add much more range than regular ones. Advanced FC add much more range than basic ones.
If i recall correctly Capital CFC's add : basic +6, advanced +10
And screen FC's : +2, +4
You can easily check it in game or in HOI2Doomsday/DB/Units/Brigades/Fire control and Capital fire control files.
You do the math which ships to build
Actually, IRL BCs were advocated before the advent of eficient turbines, and before was proven that the most important factor to limit the speed of any type of vessel that doest have a flat botton is the length of the keel. When that was proven and with to the development of more eficient steam turbines, the BC concept was dead, because the BCs couldn't stand to a BB with almost equal speed. If I'm not mistaken, the upper speed limit is S = L^0,5*1,34.
Since in HoI2 the models I and II were from the Great War, then I think the BC speed parameters should be raised in it's first three models, but that's it. If HOI2 was completely reflecting real life, then Germany should start with it's two BCs already in production and shoudln't build anymore, because if you can build the Bismarck, why build a Scharnhorst?
And remember that, IRL, Scharnhost and Gneisenau weren't BCs in the utmost sense, since they sacrificed firepower for speed, nor armor.
Since in HoI2 the models I and II were from the Great War, then I think the BC speed parameters should be raised in it's first three models, but that's it. If HOI2 was completely reflecting real life, then Germany should start with it's two BCs already in production and shoudln't build anymore, because if you can build the Bismarck, why build a Scharnhorst?
And remember that, IRL, Scharnhost and Gneisenau weren't BCs in the utmost sense, since they sacrificed firepower for speed, nor armor.
scharnhorst class had BC guns and BC speed with BB armor. makes for good convoy raider i guess
I'm using BC again in a very hard game. They are still very good at destroying various fleets but I'm avoinding large fleets like the plague. On normal attrition is part of the BC strategy as you can churn them out. On Vh not so much and I may have been better off building BB or SHBB but I can have 2 BC in the same amount of time it takes to build a SHBB for less IC. For what I'm currently using them for I probably could have used CA but I'll eventually need some larger ships so I may switch to larger ships depending on combat results vs the USN and RN
Kriehsmarine cruising late 1944 on very hard. AI gets a +20 combat modifier. Came across a 28 ship fleet with 4 carriers in it. One of my lt cruisers took a small amount of damage.
Right before they got there the fleet engaged an other carrier fleet. Didn't know how big it was as my attention was elsewhere. Claimed 2 CVs the Bunker hill and USS Hornet. Hornet was sunk by the KMS Hamburg. Both were lvl VII (1943 models?) sunk by lvl 5 BC. USA nust have recently completed them.
Kinda unusual as it late game and on VH. Iwo Jima whats the math behind this? Smaller fleets don't get a stacking penalty while large ones under Grand Admirals do? The US fleet had 82% vs 80% for me and the fight was a longish one and involved daylight hours.
Edit just checked. Theres a storm around the florida/cuba/bermuda area.
Right before they got there the fleet engaged an other carrier fleet. Didn't know how big it was as my attention was elsewhere. Claimed 2 CVs the Bunker hill and USS Hornet. Hornet was sunk by the KMS Hamburg. Both were lvl VII (1943 models?) sunk by lvl 5 BC. USA nust have recently completed them.
Kinda unusual as it late game and on VH. Iwo Jima whats the math behind this? Smaller fleets don't get a stacking penalty while large ones under Grand Admirals do? The US fleet had 82% vs 80% for me and the fight was a longish one and involved daylight hours.
Edit just checked. Theres a storm around the florida/cuba/bermuda area.
Last edited:
They haven't true BB armor, but theirs was a very effective one, since Scharnhosrt at least took quite a punishment before sinking. But they had'nt a BB firepower, because they didn't have 15'' guns (they used 11''). That's why I said that they exchanged firepower for speed. A true BC, like Hood, would have it's normal complement of triple turrets of 15'' guns, but with thinner armor belts, and if they run into a modern BB... well, we know what happened and what would happen yet again.
As I said, after BB IV, there isn't much sense in Battlecruisers IRL, but in the game, they have a better handle against CTFs then a BB SAG, it seems.
As I said, after BB IV, there isn't much sense in Battlecruisers IRL, but in the game, they have a better handle against CTFs then a BB SAG, it seems.
Very large carrier fleets (5-6) of lvl VII seem to be able to sink BC easy enough on very hard. I just lost 11 of them but part of it was I screwed up and wasn't paying atention as I usually run like hell from fleets that size and composition.
Edit don't play while kittehs are going nuts add 82 transports and 40 divisions to the death toll (reload)
Edit don't play while kittehs are going nuts add 82 transports and 40 divisions to the death toll (reload)