Originally posted by MateDow
The problem that I have with this is that the major powers stopped building or upgrading the old armored cruisers following the first world war. Although they are more powerful, they are slower. It wouldn't be good for an AI to be building ACRs as the mainstay of their fleet. Historically, the ACR was a luxury of the major maritime nations. Greece only had hers because of the generosity of a millionaire. IMO the light cruiser is a better unit for the computer to be building with it's IC.
Fair enough. Although if nobody would ever build an ACR in 1936 or later, that sounds like an arguement for making the model for ACR's not buildable by anybody. If I understand correctly, you can define a model in the unit file but not have it enabled by any tech ap, and then it can still be used for starting OOB units in the ".inc" files but nobody can build one in the game.
Originally posted by MateDow
I would like to keep the seperate techs to keep the reality of coming up with three seperate cruiser designs. It is very different to design and build a Brooklyn-class light cruiser than a New Orleans-class heavy cruiser.
The problem with this, though, is the AI in its random wisdom might end up researching the wrong tech ap and having the wrong model as its highest available model number. However, there is a way to address that while keeping separate techs - not only make the one the AI should build in each generation the highest model number in the generation, but also use the tech ap that enables the highest model number in each generation as a prereq for all the other tech aps that enable the other models in that generation.
Originally posted by MateDow
I think the super cruiser question is open to debate. If you argue that the AI should be able to build the armored cruiser because it is the most powerful available, then the super cruiser should be the highest model of that generation of cruisers. If it is considered a specialty item then it should be moved lower in the scheme. The same country that built a post-treaty heavy cruiser was also the same one that built the only super cruisers. If other countries had been building a super cruiser, I believe that the US would have focused their energy on completing the Alaska-class. As it was, by the time that the design was in production, the need for large cruisers was gone. The Alaska was the logical growth of US cruiser design, not the Baltimore-class which was still limited by the Washington Treaty when the design was started.
Well, you are looking at it from a hardware point of view, but not from a mission point of view. My point about the ACR was based on the normal cruiser mission, which the supercruiser is not designed for. The supercruiser is a special purpose ship for a special mission - to chase & engage a Japanese design (which turned out to be imaginary) that would presumably be used as a heavy commerce raider.
That leads to a digression...
From a mission point of view, starting with the "treaty" generation we have three cruiser sub-types: CL, CA & what I would call a Commerce Cruiser (aka "Pocket Battleship"). The mission of the later was specialized, not an improved sort of heavy cruiser for general cruiser duties in the fleet. Because the Deutschland-class Pocket Battleship design was constrained & compromised by the need to at least claim to meet the treaty limits for a cruiser, I'd call them "Treaty Commerce Cruisers".
Now, you have classified the Gneisenau's as Treaty Battleships. I would not say they are much like "true" Treaty Battleships such as HMS Nelson, though. Rather, I'd say both technically & Missionwise they were a "product-improved" pocket battleship, unconstrained by treaty limits - in other words "Post-Treaty Commerce Cruisers".
The Alaska's were intended to counter a rumored Japanese development similar in intended mission to the Gneisenau's. I'd also say the Gneisenau's are more like the Alaskas than the "true" Treaty Battleships. Therefore, I submit that the model you have named "super cruisers" is really what I have called ""Post-Treaty Commerce Cruisers", and that both the Gneisenau's and the Alaskas belong here.
In summary, then, I see the following generations (* designates the one that should be for the AI to build, so it gets the highest model # and it's enabling tech ap is a prereq for those of the others):
WWI: *Light Cruiser, Armored Cruiser (not buildable)
Treaty: Treaty CL, *Treaty CA, Treaty Commerce Cruiser
Post-Treaty: Post-Treaty CL, *Post-Treaty CA, Post-Treaty Commerce Cruiser, AA Cruiser
"Atomic Era": Nuclear CL, *Nuclear CA, Nuclear Commerce Cruiser
Semi-modern: CL & CA merge into CG, CG is reachable without going through the "Atomic Era", CGN is reachable through the Nuclear CA and has a higher model number than the CG.
Originally posted by MateDow
Seems that long posts are the punishment for breaking rule #1 
MDow
Funny how guys that make a habit of breaking rule #1 tend to get assigned to working parties after liberty call
<edited for typos>
