Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

C.O.R.E. HOI - Naval Mod

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
I got a question...:D

I am not so deep in with ships of the 2nd WW so I have to ask, why is the 'Treaty BB' and the 'Post Treaty BB' the same but for speed and range?
Afaik the Scharnhorst (was it a treaty BB? or a pocket battle ship?) had 4x 2x11inch towers as armament and the Bismark had 4x 2x 15 inch.

ok that was my question, now to the gameing point...

If I spent like 2 years to get to the post treaty BB (I know GER has it from start but I mean in general) why do i even bother to research it ? Unless I want the better range and speed, but as a player My conserns are more naval defense, airdefense and sea attack etc.
U may say U need it to get super BB, true, but even for germany thats a long research in Naval and most coutrys, maybe not UK, must favor other things first.

22 Naval attack and 20 seadefense, make one 21 20 and 22 21 or so?

thats it for now, thx :)

Szun
 
Scharnhorst actually is a Treaty BB, IMHO she should be classified as a Large Battlecruiser.

Treaty BB had to respect some size and weight limits, so post-treaty BBs were more heavily armoured than treaty ones...So I think they should have at least improved ND and AD.
 
Originally posted by Szun
I got a question...:D

I am not so deep in with ships of the 2nd WW so I have to ask, why is the 'Treaty BB' and the 'Post Treaty BB' the same but for speed and range?
Afaik the Scharnhorst (was it a treaty BB? or a pocket battle ship?) had 4x 2x11inch towers as armament and the Bismark had 4x 2x 15 inch.
Click to expand...

Scharnhorst is a treaty battleship in the game. She was armed with 9 11" guns in triple turrets vs Bismarck with 8 15" guns. There was a plan to rearm Scharnhorst with 6 15" guns that was delayed due to the start of the war and never accomplished.


If I spent like 2 years to get to the post treaty BB (I know GER has it from start but I mean in general) why do i even bother to research it ? Unless I want the better range and speed, but as a player My conserns are more naval defense, airdefense and sea attack etc.
U may say U need it to get super BB, true, but even for germany thats a long research in Naval and most coutrys, maybe not UK, must favor other things first.

22 Naval attack and 20 seadefense, make one 21 20 and 22 21 or so?
Click to expand...

If you look at the post treaty battleship designs (US Iowa-class and British Lion-class) you will see that the armament is not heavier than the preceeding class. North Carolina had 9 16" guns, and Iowa had 9 16" guns. The level of protection wasn't any greater between the two classes. The big difference was the increase in speed. There were some smaller differeces, but that was the major one. You don't see a great increase in striking or defensive power until the super battleships of the Yamato or Montana classes. The price that you will pay for that increased power is a reduction in speed (about 12%). Hopefully that will answer your questions. MDow
 
Originally posted by Pkunzipper
Scharnhorst actually is a Treaty BB, IMHO she should be classified as a Large Battlecruiser.
Click to expand...

Here are the vital statistics for the Scharnhorst:
34,841 standard tons
9 11"
12 5.9"
14 4.0" AA
13.75" Main Belt Armor
32 knots

Here are the vital statistics for the North Carolina:
37,484 standard tons
9 16"
20 5"
12" Main Belt Armor
28 knots

My point is that these are pretty comperable ships. The Scharnhorst trades some armament for higher speed and a little thicker belt armor, and an effect that is harder to compare, better subdivision. Is it fair to say that those two ships would be a good match for one on one combat?


Treaty BB had to respect some size and weight limits, so post-treaty BBs were more heavily armoured than treaty ones...So I think they should have at least improved ND and AD.
Click to expand...

The post-treaty battleships were still limited to some extent by the London treaty. They were limited to 45,000 tons of displacement rather than the 35,000 of the previous classes. Both the United States and the British came up with follow up designs for their treaty class battleships.

Here are the vital statistics for the Iowa. Compare them to the North Carolina above:
48,110 standard tons
9 16"
20 5"
12.1" Main Belt Armor
32.5 knots

The extra tonnage went to increasing the speed (almost 100,000 extra shaft horsepower) and to maintaining the thickness of the armor belt for the same percentage of a longer hull. All and all, the only advantage of the post-treaty battleship is the advantage of the higher speed. MDow
 
Naval Sprites

Are there any sprite editors with the CORE group? We could really use either a generic pre-dreadnaught battleship for use by the Scandinavian countries and those countries that build entry level battleships, or specific sprites for some of them.

It would also be really cool if we could get permission to add some of the new sprites from that forum. The new German naval sprites are good looking. Whomever did those should be commended. MDow
 
Re: Naval Sprites

Originally posted by MateDow
It would also be really cool if we could get permission to add some of the new sprites from that forum. The new German naval sprites are good looking. Whomever did those should be commended. MDow
Click to expand...


Which forum?

Did you see the work von Adler did in the Bug forum? Might be worth having a look, I don't know how much it overlaps with your own work.
 
Re: Naval Sprites

Originally posted by MateDow
Are there any sprite editors with the CORE group? We could really use either a generic pre-dreadnaught battleship for use by the Scandinavian countries and those countries that build entry level battleships, or specific sprites for some of them.

It would also be really cool if we could get permission to add some of the new sprites from that forum. The new German naval sprites are good looking. Whomever did those should be commended. MDow
Click to expand...

Well, could you provide some pictures of the "quintessential" pre-dreadnought? Some dimensions would help too. If no one else volunteers I might take a stab at it. I've made some planes, but not any ships. So don't get your hopes up.

The german ships were done by NewU365, (I think that's it) who also made some great looking planes. There are also great ships by sekinoss for other majors. Those are the people to try if you want good sprites.
 
Gwalcmai: take a look here:
http://www.warships1.com/
Go to Sweden and look at the Pansarkepp and Germany for their battleships.
The US Naval Historical Center has excellent photo's of US pre-dreadnoughts, too.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb.htm
Look at the warships laid down between 1891 and 1905. After that they are various flavors of "dreadnought" battleship.

MDOW: US Naval Air Strength circa 1936 (US Naval Historical Center)

BF2C Divebomber - 28 acquired
BG Divebomber - 61 acquired
BM Divebomber - 34 acquired
BT Divebomber - 54 in process of acquisition (all delivered by 10/20/1938)
SBC Vindicator - prototypes in hand but squadron deployment not until 1937.
Vought SBU - 125 in process of acquisition (all delivered by 8/37 squadron deployment in 11/35)
Grumman SF - 35
T4M Torpedo Bomber - 153
Boeing F4B - 188
Curtiss F8C - 124
F11C - 29
Grumman F2F - 56
Grumman F3F - 164 (in process of acquisition (all delivered by 5/39)

All aircraft delivered by 1/1/36 except as noted.

Tech level are clearly all "0" for these.

Now deliveries don't equal squadrons, but with this many aircraft, there's no doubt that Lexington, Saratoga, and Ranger had full decks and enough left over for some Marine squadrons, too.

MDOW: Scharnhorst vs. North Carolina - I'd bet on the NC every time.

11" Rifle (Scharnhorst) - 727 lb AP shell, penetrate 11.5" of armor at 20,000 yards.
16" Rifle (N. Carolina) - 2700 lb AP shell, penetrate 17.6" of armor at 20,000 yards.

A hypothetical one on one would force the Scharnhorst to use her speed to close in order to have a chance at getting through the US battleship's armor. The US ship would have the chance to damage her during the close and then deliver punishing body blows if they did end up at relatively close ranges. Any damage to slow the Scharnhorst and then the North Carolina could control the separation and it would be over.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Engineer
MDOW: Scharnhorst vs. North Carolina - I'd bet on the NC every time.

11" Rifle (Scharnhorst) - 727 lb AP shell, penetrate 11.5" of armor at 20,000 yards.
16" Rifle (N. Carolina) - 2700 lb AP shell, penetrate 17.6" of armor at 20,000 yards.

A hypothetical one on one would force the Scharnhorst to use her speed to close in order to have a chance at getting through the US battleship's armor. The US ship would have the chance to damage her during the close and then deliver punishing body blows if they did end up at relatively close ranges. Any damage to slow the Scharnhorst and then the North Carolina could control the separation and it would be over.
Click to expand...

Come on up and we'll wargame that one out. I have been beat by Scharnhorst in that exact battle. The problem was that her 11" guns out ranged my 16" guns by about 10000 yds. At that long range, her shells were able to penetrate my deck armor. Superior speed meant that I couldn't close the range to allow my heavier guns to score. While I wasn't sunk (darkness ended the long range duel), I suffered heavy damage that would have required long repairs. One of my main battery turrets was knocked out of action and I had lost a further 6 knots of speed, all for no return damage. The secret for the Scharnhorst is to not allow the North Carolina into range. Another battle to consider would be one versus the Hood or Repulse which are the stereotypical large battlecruisers. I don't think that I would want to be on Scharnhorst in that battle either, but it would be a good one :D.
It is sounding like people would prefer that Scharnhorst be listed as a large battlecruiser though. I am willing to make that change. That will mean no name for a treaty battleship for Germany and the removal of Mackensen as the large battlecruiser in the next version. MDow
 
Re: Re: Naval Sprites

Originally posted by Gwalcmai
Well, could you provide some pictures of the "quintessential" pre-dreadnought? Some dimensions would help too. If no one else volunteers I might take a stab at it. I've made some planes, but not any ships. So don't get your hopes up.
Click to expand...

I willl e-mail you some pictures of pre-dreadnaught battleships. As for "quintessential," I was always kind of partial to the cage masts on older US battleships myself :). But in terms of typical, I would have to say, a single heavy turret at either end, with small medium battery turrets on the beam (if the detail can be small enough). MDow
 
Pre-Dreadnaughts

The majority of Pre-Dreadnaughts or Pre-Dreadnaught type ships were heavily modernized in time for WW2. The Swedish Sverige coastal battleship http://www.warships1.com/SWEca10_Sverige_pics.htm , and the German Schleswig-Holstein http://www.warships1.com/GERpbb06_Deutschland_pics.htm were heavily modernized. (Engineer and I think alike)

Greek and Dutch pre-Dreadnaughts were not heavily modernized, and they looked pretty much like their original configuration. However, the German and Swedish Pre-Dreadnaughts were heavily modernized, and are probably better representations of 1930 era Pre-Dreadnaughts. However, since the Greek ships were ex-USN, and had those cage masts, it won't be totally innacurate to design the pre-dreadnaught to look like that.
 
Re: Pre-Dreadnaughts

Originally posted by McNaughton
The majority of Pre-Dreadnaughts or Pre-Dreadnaught type ships were heavily modernized in time for WW2. The Swedish Sverige coastal battleship http://www.warships1.com/SWEca10_Sverige_pics.htm , and the German Schleswig-Holstein http://www.warships1.com/GERpbb06_Deutschland_pics.htm were heavily modernized. (Engineer and I think alike)

Greek and Dutch pre-Dreadnaughts were not heavily modernized, and they looked pretty much like their original configuration. However, the German and Swedish Pre-Dreadnaughts were heavily modernized, and are probably better representations of 1930 era Pre-Dreadnaughts. However, since the Greek ships were ex-USN, and had those cage masts, it won't be totally innacurate to design the pre-dreadnaught to look like that.
Click to expand...

I agree that if there is only going to be one design, I think that the Swedish Sverige-class is probably the best one to represent a typical 1930s pre-dreadnaught. The German Deutchland-class show a lot of their ealry 1900s heritage in even their modernized appearance.
As much as I would like to design sprites, I just haven't figured out how, even after reading Nighty's 'how-to' guide. There are a lot of unique warships that have been added to CORE that would just be fun to see running around the oceans. I wish that warships had the same number of levels available as tanks for use (actually, I wish that you could have the same number of sprites as models ;)), but that will have to wait. MDow
 
I've been looking at those (Sverige, Deutschland, some other pre-dreadnoughts) Maybe the Sverige would be more appropriate (I'm going on MDow's word), but the thing is: the "battleships, carriers and all other warships" webpage has line drawings of Deutshland, but not of Sverige. As making models out of line drawings is easier than trying to figure out old photos, I'm leaning towards german designs. :)

However, having seen the dimensions of the things, I'm not sure if I should make the sprite the ship proportionally to the existing BB sprites. If I do, the sprite will be pretty tiny, considering the ships were half the length of a BB.

But I'll try to make a somewhat crude model and post a picture of it here.
 
Long Range Gun Duels

Hi, Mdow. I'll still take the NC. Which simulation were you using for the one on one for NC vs. Scharnhorst?

Range: Yes - Scharnhorst has the edge here. Her 11's could reach almost 45,000 yards at the max 40 degree turret elevation. NC had a max range of only about 37,000 yards at a her max 45 degree turret elevation. I don't know the horizon from the respective fire-control stations of each ship, but I have to suspect that is over the horizon.

Penetration: You have a point there, too. At 30,000 yards, about a 30 degree angle of fall, the Scharnhorst AP shells would penetrate almost 3 inches of plate and the NC had a 3.6" armored deck. Go further out and the steeper angle of fall would give greater penetration. There were multiple armored decks, but certainly damage would be taken. The turret roofs on the NC had 7" of armor so they should have been proof.

Probability of hits: The Scharnhorst was doing some mighty fine shooting to get multiple hits at 40,000 yards. Historically, the Scharnhorst hit the British CV Glorious at about 24,000 yards which is one of the longest recorded hits. Flight time for the shells at 40,000 yards would be approaching two minutes so the probability of a hit ought to be really low. With ammunition stowage of only 130 rounds per gun, such a long distance gun bombardment would avoid defeat but be unlikely to defeat the NC. This is assuming equivalent fire control, but I suspect that this advantage would creep towards the NC during the progress of the war as the USA introduced incrementally better radar versus the Germans. However, that is a different set of techs.

The Tactical Problem: At over 35,000 yards the Scharnhorst is beyond effective range of the NC and can penetrate non-critical spaces with plunging fire. Between about 18,000 and 30,000 yards the NC would be be virtually invulnerable to the Scharnhorst due to the sufficiency of her armor versus the 11" rifles on the Scharnhorst. Below 18,000 yards, each ship can penetrate the armor of the other, but the NC has a broadside nearly 4x that of the Scharnhorst.

IRL: Duke of York sank Scharnhorst in the Norwegian Sea in 1943. Scharnhorst's radar was damaged early in the fight so her gunnery was severely degraded. But the Duke of York was a Treaty Battleship with 10 x 14" main guns that were significantly less powerful than the 16" guns on the US battleships and had a similar speed disadvantage versus the Scharnhorst.

Under ideal conditions I can see how Scharnhorst can avoid defeat, but there is very little margin there. Looking at likely engagement ranges, weather, and visibility, the edge is clear.
 
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
I've been looking at those (Sverige, Deutschland, some other pre-dreadnoughts) Maybe the Sverige would be more appropriate (I'm going on MDow's word), but the thing is: the "battleships, carriers and all other warships" webpage has line drawings of Deutshland, but not of Sverige. As making models out of line drawings is easier than trying to figure out old photos, I'm leaning towards german designs. :)

But I'll try to make a somewhat crude model and post a picture of it here.
Click to expand...

Here is a sight that has high contrast pictures of the Sverige that could be useful. They aren't of the real ship, just a gaming model, but that should work. MDow
 
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
However, having seen the dimensions of the things, I'm not sure if I should make the sprite the ship proportionally to the existing BB sprites. If I do, the sprite will be pretty tiny, considering the ships were half the length of a BB.
Click to expand...

Well, in HoI bombers and fighters are visually the same size, so I think it would be best if we kept these ships at a size that would look the best, rather than as accurate sizes.
 
Being the lazy bugger that I am, I decided to just make things up as I went along ;). I looked at photos and line drawings of Deutschland, Sverige and others and made up my ship with details from several ships (or completely made up ones).

So, here's a working model, so you guys can throw in suggestions on what works and what doesn't.

predred.bmp


So, what changes should be made? The rear mast will be changed, as you can't see it anyway (it was a kind of cage-mast thing). And yes, I know that bridge would be prohibitively expensive and a death-trap, but I didn't have that many details, so that's a stand-in.

Yes, there will be a secondary battery, just haven't made it yet
 
Nice... :)

So CORE has it's own sprite maker now..? I feel sorry for you, you won't be left alone from now on.. ;)

It looks fine to me, but I'm not an expert. Maybe it could be a bit more 'square' to get that dreadnaught feeling... Is that bubbles comming off the stern, has it sunk already?? :)
 
Looks good, very good. Pole or tripod masts would probably be more common by WW2 anyway.

The Bridge looks good, but you just might want to decrease its height, as most pre-dreadnaugths had pretty low bridges because there was just one gun fore and aft.

Also, single barreled secondary turrets were common secondary armament, as sponsoons were pretty much eliminated by WW2.
 
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
So, what changes should be made? The rear mast will be changed, as you can't see it anyway (it was a kind of cage-mast thing). And yes, I know that bridge would be prohibitively expensive and a death-trap, but I didn't have that many details, so that's a stand-in.

Yes, there will be a secondary battery, just haven't made it yet
Click to expand...

I like it. Since you asked for options here are some...

More sparse superstructure. Most of the pre-dreadnaughts didn't have extensive command and control stuctures.

Maybe a third stack? It gives that older warship feel.

A platform halfway up the foremast with maybe a tripod aft. Thank you for trying the cage :) :).

I like the ramming bow. Very period.

I really do like it though. Those are just me nit picking. MDow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back