MateDow said:
Smark74: On the other thread you asked how you get something added into CORE. For at least the naval section, you have to convince me and the rest of the people that regularly contribute that your way is correct and a better way to do things than is currently done. If you do that, it will be put into the next release of CORE.
Hi
I'm mad enought to give it a go
I have some knowledge of naval history and would like to help.
Maybe some of this is stuff that's been hashed out before - my apologies if so
(but directions to or summaries of the arguments would be appreciated). Also, apologies in advance for errors or things that have been superseded by the next version of CORE.
Just played my first CORE game – loved it, may never go back to Vanilla.
But I do have a few questions/issues about the Naval models and OOB (my pet subject).
Models first. For the most part I really like the models – they’re things that should be done to Vanilla.
Just a few concerns though:
1. Do you really think the pre-dreadnaughts should have an attack 75% of that of a dreadnaught? A broadside from a typical dreadnaught would have been 8-10 x 12” or 13.5”. That of a pre-dreadnaught perhaps 4x11” or 12” and maybe 3(or so) x 9.2” (or something like that). I think a sea attack of 10 would be better. They were also affected by the difficulties of distinguising between the splashes of the main and secondary batteries, reducing the raw effectiveness of their guns.
2. I'm sorry but I have to think the armoured cruiser is over-rated as it stands. It is currently far superior to the Treaty Heavy Cruiser (attack/defence 9/8 vs. 8/3). Even if they had impressive armour thicknesses (typically around a six inch belt and a two inch deck) their subdivision and armour arrangement was completely obsolete by the 30’s – these are very old ships (I can’t think of any launched post-1905). I would say a defence of 6 at best (possibly even 5).
While their armament may look impressive on paper (for example, SMS Scharnhorst at 8x8” and 6x5.9”, HMS Minotaur at 4x9.2” and 10x7.5”) not all guns could fire on a single broadside (6x8” and 3x5.9” for SMS Scharhorst, 4x9.2” and 5x7.5” for HMS Minotaur). Some of the main and all of the secondary were typically in casemates or situated on lower decks, which reduced the gun’s effectiveness. They also suffered from the difficulties of sighting and laying mixed batteries. As a result I would say an attack of 5 or 6 would be better.
Together this would make them superior to their contemporaries but inferior to latter ships, which sounds right. The armoured cruiser was an obsolete type – no major power built them after about 1906. But as it stands they are a very sound investment, having superior attack and defence, but equal cost, to a post treaty heavy cruiser.
3. Speaking of the Treaty Heavy Cruiser should its basic defence really be less than that of the Treaty Light Cruiser? I think the Treaty Heavy Cruiser should have a defence of 5 – it fits much better into the sequence then.
4. The Pocket battleship is also well overrated at attack 11 defence 8. The only example of the type was the Deutschland class - and they were really cruisers armed with 11" guns:
6x11” main armament
2.25”-3” belt (or 60mm-80mm, depending on source)
1.5” deck
3.5”-5.5” main turret
11,700t standard displacement
Their displacement and armour is almost indistinguishable from contemporary cruisers.
Compare to Treaty Heavy Cruisers:
British 8x8” cruiser
8x8” main armament
1” belt
1”-4” ammunition box
1” turrets
10,000t standard displacement
Pola
8x8” main armament
100mm-150mm belt
20mm-70mm deck
120mm-150mm main turret
11,700t standard displacement
Duquesne
8x8” main armament
1” belt
1” box citadel
1” main turret
10,000t standard displacement
Hipper
8x8” main armament
1.5”-3.25” belt
0.5”-1.25” deck
2.25”-6.25” main turret
14,00t standard displacement
I could go on, but I think the idea is clear. Now I think a case could be made that the German and Italian cruisers are actually post-treaty, but even that says that the pocket battleship’s sea defence should, at best, be the same as a post treaty cruiser’s – that is 6, not 8. Perhaps a defence of 5 is not out of the question.
As to its attack, well they had two-thirds the guns of the Scharnhorst’s. Small treaty battlecruisers have an attack of 14 – give the pocket battleships 2/3 of that – 9 or 10. Actually 10 attack, 5 defence sounds right – better attack but weaker defence than a post-treaty heavy cruiser.
5. The sloop type. Different navies used the term “sloop” to refer to very different types. For example, the British Hastings class (Folkestone, Hastings, Penzance, Scarborough) which you have represented as separate vessels were
1045t standard displacement
16.5kts
2x4”, 2x3pr, some DC
This shows the way the British used “sloop” – for convoy escorts of 1000-2000t, in ship-to-ship combat terms inferior to a destroyer. I know there are some ships called “sloops” with, for example, 6x6” guns, but this just shows you can’t use the type name as definitive. Rating the UK sloops as a cruiser type both overrates them and prevents them being used as escorts – under the current CORE classifications these ships would be better rated as corvettes – and I’m assuming it would, as usual, take multiple actual such ships to make a HOI destroyer type-unit. By the way these comments also apply to the UK Shoreham class (almost identical statistics as the Hastings) – I haven’t checked further. Anyway, what I'm saying is more of an OOB issue than a models issue - the sloop type you have existed (ie a very light cruiser) but some of the things you've used that model for should have used a different model (even if they were historicallly called "sloops")
I can extend all the above with further examples - but didn't want to to start with. Thoughts?
Michael
