-
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.
The Passenger liners already in the game are the biggest in the world. They where giants really that where up to 80,000 grt!
Semi-Lobster said:
I think there's problem with the line between type 3 and type 5. I'm uncomfortable with putting the 12 and 15 gunned Southhamptons and Brooklyns in with the 6 and 8 Gunned Leanders, Arethusa's and Tromps.
But is it satisfactory putting those classes with the earlier ones currently under type 3? I'm inclined to say yes, but am open to persuasion.
Michael
Semi-Lobster said:
Hey, I'm impressed you're awake at that time, let alone on the net.
I'm off work at the moment so I've grabbed the chance and have been steaming ahead
I think I'll be snowed under once I get back, so want to get through as much as possible. To help everyone's sanity, including my own, I'll make my next post a summary of the changes I'd like to the models and will keep editing it as things happen (people agree, others crop up or I change my opinion)Michael
Summary of proposals from me
I think this will be post #970, so remember that number
Add an escort sloop type in the destroyers
Matedow is in agreement here, so it's just debating what's an escort sloop and what's a colonial sloop
Pocket Battleship changes
I'd like to see the following
attack 10/11
defence 1 more than whatever heavy crusier type the Hipper's are counted as
manpower 2
time 400
Amoured Cruiser changes
I'd like to see the following
attack 8
defence 5
time 350/375
Pre-dreadnaughts
change their attack to 10
I seem to remember Matedow agreeing to this - could be wrong
Cruiser type 5 Treaty Light Cruiser
Use it only for "genuine" treaty cruisers - essentially not for cruisers armed with 6 to 8 6" guns, use type 3 light crusier for them
Post-treaty light cruiser
Consider dropping its defence to 5. This is not one I consider very important.
Fast Treaty Battleship
add 1 or 2 points to both sea attack and sea defence
Post treaty Battleship
add 1 or 2 points to both sea attack and sea defence
Fast Treaty Battleship tech
make improved 406mm naval gun a pre-requisite for this tech (perhaps)
Plus model name and OOB changes to come.
I made some suggestions about changing the cost of the pre-dreadnaughts and dreadnaughts, but ignore them as I've become even harsher on the armoured cruisers since.
Michael
I think this will be post #970, so remember that number
Add an escort sloop type in the destroyers
Matedow is in agreement here, so it's just debating what's an escort sloop and what's a colonial sloop
Pocket Battleship changes
I'd like to see the following
attack 10/11
defence 1 more than whatever heavy crusier type the Hipper's are counted as
manpower 2
time 400
Amoured Cruiser changes
I'd like to see the following
attack 8
defence 5
time 350/375
Pre-dreadnaughts
change their attack to 10
I seem to remember Matedow agreeing to this - could be wrong
Cruiser type 5 Treaty Light Cruiser
Use it only for "genuine" treaty cruisers - essentially not for cruisers armed with 6 to 8 6" guns, use type 3 light crusier for them
Post-treaty light cruiser
Consider dropping its defence to 5. This is not one I consider very important.
Fast Treaty Battleship
add 1 or 2 points to both sea attack and sea defence
Post treaty Battleship
add 1 or 2 points to both sea attack and sea defence
Fast Treaty Battleship tech
make improved 406mm naval gun a pre-requisite for this tech (perhaps)
Plus model name and OOB changes to come.
I made some suggestions about changing the cost of the pre-dreadnaughts and dreadnaughts, but ignore them as I've become even harsher on the armoured cruisers since.
Michael
Last edited:
As I said, stemaing ahead to the battleships:
I’ve got a couple of issues with the classifications of the treaty and after battleships.
First let’s look at how they are currently classified
Treaty Battleships classes
North Carolina, South Dakota, Nelson, King George V, Littorio, Sovietsky Soyuz, Richelieu
Fast treaty Battleships classes
Iowa, Vanguard
Post Treaty Battleship classes
Montana, Lion, Bismarck
Super Battleship classes
Yamato, H
The treaty limit was 35000t standard and 14” (the calibre restriction was only followed by the British for the King George V class)
Now let’s see how these ships stack up
Treaty Battleships
Displacement
North Carolina 37,500t
South Dakota 38,000
Nelson 33,300t
King George V 36,700t
Littorio 40,700t
Sovietsky Soyuz 59,000t
Richelieu 35,000t
Speed
North Carolina 28kts
South Dakota 27.5 kts
Nelson 23kts
King George V 28kts
Littorio 30kts
Sovietsky Soyuz 28kts
Richelieu 30kts
Armour
North Carolina 12.75”-7.35” belt, 5.5”-5” deck, 16”-7” turrets
South Dakota 13.075”- 1.875” belt, 6”-5.75” deck, 18”-7.25” turrets
Nelson 14”-13” belt, 6.25”-3.75” deck, 16”-7.25” turrets
King George V 15”-4.5”, 6”-5” deck, 13”-6” turrets
Littorio 14” belt, 6.4”-1.8” deck, 14”-8” turrets
Sovietsky Soyuz 16.75” belt, 8.75” deck, 19.5” turrets
Richelieu 13.5”- 9.75” belt, 6.75”-6” deck, 17.5”-6.75” turrets
Armament
North Carolina 9x16”
South Dakota 9x16”
Nelson 9x16”
King George V 10x14”
Littorio 9x15”
Sovietsky Soyuz 9x16”
Richelieu 8x15”
A reasonably homogenous group, except for the Sovietsky Soyuz. She would have been much heavier, her armour thicker and her 16” guns were 50cal whereas the other 16” gunned ships in this group had 45cal guns. Perhaps she should be a higher rated type?
Fast Treaty Battleships
Displacement
Iowa 48,000t
Vanguard 44,500
Speed
Iowa 32.5 kts
Vanguard 30kts
Armour
Iowa 13.075”- 2.475” belt, 6”-5.75” deck, 19.7”-7.25” turrets
Vanguard 14”-4.5”, 6”-5” deck, 13”-6” turrets
Armament
Iowa 9x16”
Vanguard 8x15”
Not quite so homogenous. They are certainly faster than their respective nations treaty battleships. We still haven’t reached the Sovietysk Soyuz’ displacement. Armour for the Vanguard is about the same as the KGV’s, but for the Iowa is marginally better than the US treaty ships. Given that the Iowa’s had the 50cal 16” gun I think giving her the same stats as the US treaty ships is shortchanging her. The problem is that the Vanguard has the same armament as the UK Fast/Super Dreadnaughts! Tricky. Given that the Vanguard was a superior gun platform due to her greater beam than those earlier ships I’d let that past (especially as the turrets were reconditioned and elevation increased before fitting). I’d recommend, due to the higher displacement and slightly better armour, raising the defence of the fast treaty battleship by a point or two. Similarly with the attack (a point or two), but consideration should also be given to making the improved 406mm gun a pre-requisite to the fast treaty battleship tech as that is what the Iowa’s had (same gun as was intended for the Montana’s).
Post Treaty Battleships
Displacement
Lion 40,550t
Montana 60,500t
Bismarck 42,000
Speed
Lion 30kts
Montana 28kts
Bismarck 29kts
Armour
Lion 15”-5.5” belt, 6”-5” deck,, 15”-6” turrets
Montana 17.1”-11.2” belt, 7.35”-6”deck, 22.5”-9.15” turrets
Bismarck 12.5”-10.5” belt, 4.75”-3.25”, 14.25”-7” turrets
Armament
Lion 9x16”
Montana 12x16”
Bismarck 8x15”
Not homogenous at all. If we put the Sovietsky Soyuz here it pairs reasonably well with the Montana’s (both were to have been armed with 16”/50 guns). The Bismarck especially looks overrated. Her amour is weaker and her weight of shell is comparable to that of the Iowas (once rate of fire is taken into account) which is only 75% that of the Montanas. Better if she were counted as a fast treaty battleship (which is where her displacement puts her anyway). If my suggestion of increased stats for that type is accepted than she will still be superior to the treaty type. It would also make the tech required for her less of a problem (giving Germany post treaty BB tech at the moment is way out of line with Germany’s other techs in 1936). To make room for the increase in fast treaty stats I would increase the post treaty stats similarly. The Lion’s were really a fast treaty type – note they have the highest speed of three listed above. Perhaps switch the Lion and Vanguard types, given the order in which they were designed? I know that probably overrates the Vanguard, but the other option is simply to drop one and leave post treaty blank for the UK.
Super Battleships
Displacement
H class 55,453t
Yamato 63,000t
Speed
H class 30kts
Yamato 27kts
Armour
H class 11.75”-7” belt, 4.75”-4” deck, 15.25”-5” turrets
Yamato 16.1” belt, 9.1”-7.9” deck, 25.6”-7.6”
Armament
H class 8x16”
Yamato 9x18.1”
Not really comparable. As the Bismarck drops back to Fast treaty battleship, I’d drop the H class back to post treaty. It will fit much better with the Montanas. I’d use the H44 for the German super battleships.
Summary
1. Move Sovietsky Soyuz from treaty battleship to post treaty battleship
2. Move Bismarck to fast treaty battleship and give the Germans fast treaty battleship rather than post treaty battleship in beginning techs for 36
3. Move H class to post-treaty battleship
4. Add H44 class as the German super battleship
5. Switch the Vanguard to UK post treaty battleships
6. Switch the Lion to UK fast treaty battleships
7. Add 1 or two points to sea defence and sea attack for the fast treaty battleship
8. Add 1 or two points to sea defence and sea attack for the post treaty battleship
9. Perhaps make improved 406mm naval gun a pre-requisite for fast treaty battleship
Michael
I’ve got a couple of issues with the classifications of the treaty and after battleships.
First let’s look at how they are currently classified
Treaty Battleships classes
North Carolina, South Dakota, Nelson, King George V, Littorio, Sovietsky Soyuz, Richelieu
Fast treaty Battleships classes
Iowa, Vanguard
Post Treaty Battleship classes
Montana, Lion, Bismarck
Super Battleship classes
Yamato, H
The treaty limit was 35000t standard and 14” (the calibre restriction was only followed by the British for the King George V class)
Now let’s see how these ships stack up
Treaty Battleships
Displacement
North Carolina 37,500t
South Dakota 38,000
Nelson 33,300t
King George V 36,700t
Littorio 40,700t
Sovietsky Soyuz 59,000t
Richelieu 35,000t
Speed
North Carolina 28kts
South Dakota 27.5 kts
Nelson 23kts
King George V 28kts
Littorio 30kts
Sovietsky Soyuz 28kts
Richelieu 30kts
Armour
North Carolina 12.75”-7.35” belt, 5.5”-5” deck, 16”-7” turrets
South Dakota 13.075”- 1.875” belt, 6”-5.75” deck, 18”-7.25” turrets
Nelson 14”-13” belt, 6.25”-3.75” deck, 16”-7.25” turrets
King George V 15”-4.5”, 6”-5” deck, 13”-6” turrets
Littorio 14” belt, 6.4”-1.8” deck, 14”-8” turrets
Sovietsky Soyuz 16.75” belt, 8.75” deck, 19.5” turrets
Richelieu 13.5”- 9.75” belt, 6.75”-6” deck, 17.5”-6.75” turrets
Armament
North Carolina 9x16”
South Dakota 9x16”
Nelson 9x16”
King George V 10x14”
Littorio 9x15”
Sovietsky Soyuz 9x16”
Richelieu 8x15”
A reasonably homogenous group, except for the Sovietsky Soyuz. She would have been much heavier, her armour thicker and her 16” guns were 50cal whereas the other 16” gunned ships in this group had 45cal guns. Perhaps she should be a higher rated type?
Fast Treaty Battleships
Displacement
Iowa 48,000t
Vanguard 44,500
Speed
Iowa 32.5 kts
Vanguard 30kts
Armour
Iowa 13.075”- 2.475” belt, 6”-5.75” deck, 19.7”-7.25” turrets
Vanguard 14”-4.5”, 6”-5” deck, 13”-6” turrets
Armament
Iowa 9x16”
Vanguard 8x15”
Not quite so homogenous. They are certainly faster than their respective nations treaty battleships. We still haven’t reached the Sovietysk Soyuz’ displacement. Armour for the Vanguard is about the same as the KGV’s, but for the Iowa is marginally better than the US treaty ships. Given that the Iowa’s had the 50cal 16” gun I think giving her the same stats as the US treaty ships is shortchanging her. The problem is that the Vanguard has the same armament as the UK Fast/Super Dreadnaughts! Tricky. Given that the Vanguard was a superior gun platform due to her greater beam than those earlier ships I’d let that past (especially as the turrets were reconditioned and elevation increased before fitting). I’d recommend, due to the higher displacement and slightly better armour, raising the defence of the fast treaty battleship by a point or two. Similarly with the attack (a point or two), but consideration should also be given to making the improved 406mm gun a pre-requisite to the fast treaty battleship tech as that is what the Iowa’s had (same gun as was intended for the Montana’s).
Post Treaty Battleships
Displacement
Lion 40,550t
Montana 60,500t
Bismarck 42,000
Speed
Lion 30kts
Montana 28kts
Bismarck 29kts
Armour
Lion 15”-5.5” belt, 6”-5” deck,, 15”-6” turrets
Montana 17.1”-11.2” belt, 7.35”-6”deck, 22.5”-9.15” turrets
Bismarck 12.5”-10.5” belt, 4.75”-3.25”, 14.25”-7” turrets
Armament
Lion 9x16”
Montana 12x16”
Bismarck 8x15”
Not homogenous at all. If we put the Sovietsky Soyuz here it pairs reasonably well with the Montana’s (both were to have been armed with 16”/50 guns). The Bismarck especially looks overrated. Her amour is weaker and her weight of shell is comparable to that of the Iowas (once rate of fire is taken into account) which is only 75% that of the Montanas. Better if she were counted as a fast treaty battleship (which is where her displacement puts her anyway). If my suggestion of increased stats for that type is accepted than she will still be superior to the treaty type. It would also make the tech required for her less of a problem (giving Germany post treaty BB tech at the moment is way out of line with Germany’s other techs in 1936). To make room for the increase in fast treaty stats I would increase the post treaty stats similarly. The Lion’s were really a fast treaty type – note they have the highest speed of three listed above. Perhaps switch the Lion and Vanguard types, given the order in which they were designed? I know that probably overrates the Vanguard, but the other option is simply to drop one and leave post treaty blank for the UK.
Super Battleships
Displacement
H class 55,453t
Yamato 63,000t
Speed
H class 30kts
Yamato 27kts
Armour
H class 11.75”-7” belt, 4.75”-4” deck, 15.25”-5” turrets
Yamato 16.1” belt, 9.1”-7.9” deck, 25.6”-7.6”
Armament
H class 8x16”
Yamato 9x18.1”
Not really comparable. As the Bismarck drops back to Fast treaty battleship, I’d drop the H class back to post treaty. It will fit much better with the Montanas. I’d use the H44 for the German super battleships.
Summary
1. Move Sovietsky Soyuz from treaty battleship to post treaty battleship
2. Move Bismarck to fast treaty battleship and give the Germans fast treaty battleship rather than post treaty battleship in beginning techs for 36
3. Move H class to post-treaty battleship
4. Add H44 class as the German super battleship
5. Switch the Vanguard to UK post treaty battleships
6. Switch the Lion to UK fast treaty battleships
7. Add 1 or two points to sea defence and sea attack for the fast treaty battleship
8. Add 1 or two points to sea defence and sea attack for the post treaty battleship
9. Perhaps make improved 406mm naval gun a pre-requisite for fast treaty battleship
Michael
And so, just because cut and paste is so easy, let’s see how the lists in the previous message look if re-arranged as I’ve suggested
Treaty Battleships
Displacement
North Carolina 37,500t
South Dakota 38,000
Nelson 33,300t
King George V 36,700t
Littorio 40,700t
Richelieu 35,000t
Speed
North Carolina 28kts
South Dakota 27.5 kts
Nelson 23kts
King George V 28kts
Littorio 30kts
Richelieu 30kts
Armour
North Carolina 12.75”-7.35” belt, 5.5”-5” deck, 16”-7” turrets
South Dakota 13.075”- 1.875” belt, 6”-5.75” deck, 18”-7.25” turrets
Nelson 14”-13” belt, 6.25”-3.75” deck, 16”-7.25” turrets
King George V 15”-4.5”, 6”-5” deck, 13”-6” turrets
Littorio 14” belt, 6.4”-1.8” deck, 14”-8” turrets
Richelieu 13.5”- 9.75” belt, 6.75”-6” deck, 17.5”-6.75” turrets
Armament
North Carolina 9x16”
South Dakota 9x16”
Nelson 9x16”
King George V 10x14”
Littorio 9x15”
Richelieu 8x15”
Fast Treaty Battleships
Displacement
Lion 40,550t
Bismarck 42,000
Iowa 48,000t
Speed
Iowa 32.5 kts
Lion 30kts
Bismarck 29kts
Armour
Iowa 13.075”- 2.475” belt, 6”-5.75” deck, 19.7”-7.25” turrets
Lion 15”-5.5” belt, 6”-5” deck,, 15”-6” turrets
Bismarck 12.5”-10.5” belt, 4.75”-3.25”, 14.25”-7” turrets
Armament
Iowa 9x16”
Lion 9x16”
Bismarck 8x15”
Post Treaty Battleships
Displacement
Montana 60,500t
Sovietsky Soyuz 59,000t
H class 55,453t
Vanguard 44,500
Speed
Montana 28kts
Sovietsky Soyuz 28kts
Vanguard 30kts
H class 30kts
Armour
Montana 17.1”-11.2” belt, 7.35”-6”deck, 22.5”-9.15” turrets
Sovietsky Soyuz 16.75” belt, 8.75” deck, 19.5” turrets
H class 11.75”-7” belt, 4.75”-4” deck, 15.25”-5” turrets
Vanguard 14”-4.5”, 6”-5” deck, 13”-6” turrets
Armament
Montana 12x16”
Sovietsky Soyuz 9x16”
Vanguard 8x15”
H class 8x16”
Super Battleships
Displacement
Yamato 63,000t
Speed
Yamato 27kts
Armour
Yamato 16.1” belt, 9.1”-7.9” deck, 25.6”-7.6”
Armament
Yamato 9x18.1”
OK, the Vanguard is probably a bit small and lightly armoured for the post-treaty type, but apart from that I think it makes for more homogenous sets.
Michael
Treaty Battleships
Displacement
North Carolina 37,500t
South Dakota 38,000
Nelson 33,300t
King George V 36,700t
Littorio 40,700t
Richelieu 35,000t
Speed
North Carolina 28kts
South Dakota 27.5 kts
Nelson 23kts
King George V 28kts
Littorio 30kts
Richelieu 30kts
Armour
North Carolina 12.75”-7.35” belt, 5.5”-5” deck, 16”-7” turrets
South Dakota 13.075”- 1.875” belt, 6”-5.75” deck, 18”-7.25” turrets
Nelson 14”-13” belt, 6.25”-3.75” deck, 16”-7.25” turrets
King George V 15”-4.5”, 6”-5” deck, 13”-6” turrets
Littorio 14” belt, 6.4”-1.8” deck, 14”-8” turrets
Richelieu 13.5”- 9.75” belt, 6.75”-6” deck, 17.5”-6.75” turrets
Armament
North Carolina 9x16”
South Dakota 9x16”
Nelson 9x16”
King George V 10x14”
Littorio 9x15”
Richelieu 8x15”
Fast Treaty Battleships
Displacement
Lion 40,550t
Bismarck 42,000
Iowa 48,000t
Speed
Iowa 32.5 kts
Lion 30kts
Bismarck 29kts
Armour
Iowa 13.075”- 2.475” belt, 6”-5.75” deck, 19.7”-7.25” turrets
Lion 15”-5.5” belt, 6”-5” deck,, 15”-6” turrets
Bismarck 12.5”-10.5” belt, 4.75”-3.25”, 14.25”-7” turrets
Armament
Iowa 9x16”
Lion 9x16”
Bismarck 8x15”
Post Treaty Battleships
Displacement
Montana 60,500t
Sovietsky Soyuz 59,000t
H class 55,453t
Vanguard 44,500
Speed
Montana 28kts
Sovietsky Soyuz 28kts
Vanguard 30kts
H class 30kts
Armour
Montana 17.1”-11.2” belt, 7.35”-6”deck, 22.5”-9.15” turrets
Sovietsky Soyuz 16.75” belt, 8.75” deck, 19.5” turrets
H class 11.75”-7” belt, 4.75”-4” deck, 15.25”-5” turrets
Vanguard 14”-4.5”, 6”-5” deck, 13”-6” turrets
Armament
Montana 12x16”
Sovietsky Soyuz 9x16”
Vanguard 8x15”
H class 8x16”
Super Battleships
Displacement
Yamato 63,000t
Speed
Yamato 27kts
Armour
Yamato 16.1” belt, 9.1”-7.9” deck, 25.6”-7.6”
Armament
Yamato 9x18.1”
OK, the Vanguard is probably a bit small and lightly armoured for the post-treaty type, but apart from that I think it makes for more homogenous sets.
Michael
mhitchens1963 said:
I guess you're right but age is a factor and the Tromps where newer vessels and I can see where your going with the amount of guns.
And don't worry about the sloops, they're my specialty!
Semi-Lobster said:
I know what you mean about age, but what to do?
I can't come at the 6 to 8 gunned small light cruisers being the same as the bigger ones.
The only alternative I can think of is
heavy treaty cruiser 8 attack 3 defence
light treaty cruiser 7 attack 4 defence
small light cruiser 6 attack 3 defence
old light cruiser 5 attack 3 or 2 defence
But is it worth it? I'm not convinced. I'd be just as happy to put the newer small light cruiser and the old light cruisers in the same category.
Semi-Lobster said:And don't worry about the sloops, they're my specialty!
Fair enough
Michael
I posted this on the wiki, but maybe somebody here could help too:
We are translating core to spanish (we are about to finish) and i have a doubt with one of the submarine tech tree descs:
CTECD_5610;The improvements that allowed small generators to be used to provide emergency power for damage control allowed the generators used for recharging the batteries to be made smaller. These improvements included advances in the tightness of the windings within the culminator and the efficiency of the generator.;;;;;;;;;;X
What the heck is a "culminator" ?¿????
We are translating core to spanish (we are about to finish) and i have a doubt with one of the submarine tech tree descs:
CTECD_5610;The improvements that allowed small generators to be used to provide emergency power for damage control allowed the generators used for recharging the batteries to be made smaller. These improvements included advances in the tightness of the windings within the culminator and the efficiency of the generator.;;;;;;;;;;X
What the heck is a "culminator" ?¿????
nachinus said:
Ok I tried running it through dictionary.reference.com and it clearly stated that a Culminator in English is a Culminator in Spanish
Still dont have a clue what it is though. First guess when I come to think of a Generator is some kind of Dynamo funtion though where the windings are the steady copper threads winded around the center moving core. At least that my best guess.
Ghost_dk
Are you sure that it's not supposed to be commutator instead?
To keep the torque on a DC motor from reversing every time the coil moves through the plane perpendicular to the magnetic field, a split-ring device called a commutator is used to reverse the current at that point.
To keep the torque on a DC motor from reversing every time the coil moves through the plane perpendicular to the magnetic field, a split-ring device called a commutator is used to reverse the current at that point.
We've got some ingeneers in the spanish forums, and they don't know what a culminator is, we don´t use this word in spanish.
Conmutator, eh?... it could be
Thanks both, we´ll keep investigating it
Conmutator, eh?... it could be
Thanks both, we´ll keep investigating it
1.06 Goodies!
Hurray!!!!
Now the UK can go on a historical 'cruiser give away to the rest of the Allies' spree!
Hurray!!!!
Now the UK can go on a historical 'cruiser give away to the rest of the Allies' spree!
I've been thinking and here's basically an example of my idea. I really don't like the idea of the Polish Gryf for example being in the same class as the Persian Babr gunboats but I think the Babr should remain in the game, so I propose a Treaty Sloop model of ship. These would basically be the Bougainvilles and the Eritrea etc. the tech for the treaty sloop would deactivate escort sloops and vice-versa. They should have a higher attack (3 maybe?) good AA and be faster to build, maybe cost 4 IC and take 250 days to build, of course this is all up to MateDow. This class would solve a problem I've been thinking about. This way we can keep the regular sloop so minors don't go crazy and build tons of them while lrager countries have a more accurately modern and more capable ship. I think the pre-reqs should be Washington Treaty designs and 152mm guns (or lighter). The Only countries who should start off with the treaty sloop tech Italy, France, Germany, USA, Netherlands, Sweden (possibly the Nen class light cruiser?), Spain and Portugual (I'm not sure about these two, I'll do some research, I'm thinking there would be some Treaty sloops for the newer ones but still mostly regular sloops). I'm not saying all their sloops should but some of the more modern/stronger ones. The UK (including the Commonwealth) and Japan (although I guess the Katori class could be treaty sloops) can have Escorts sloops. Ships that are 'treaty sloops' and in the buile que but their country doesn't have the tech to build them are the Gryf and the Tachins. Of course this is just an idea!
Last edited:
mhitchens1963 said:
I am sorry if this doesn't make any sense. I have been working 90 hour weeks for the past two and a half weeks, and am a little loopy. I decided to relax by coming and reading about navies
Thank you.
I think that the treaty light cruiser name should apply to any cruiser that has her main armament consentrated into turrets. That was my mental classification that I used while making the OOBs. That is why the Tromp is rated as just a light cruiser while the British Leander is in the treaty class.
I agree that the manpower should be lower. I can't argue with numbers and I can't scroll far enough back to find what I wrote earlier so forgive my generalizations. If I remember correctly, the Deutchland had a belt of around 3" which compared to a belt thickness of 1" on most of the treaty heavy cruiser designs. That is at least three times thicker. The diesel engines allowed for better subdivision and generally smaller engineering spaces than a vessel equipped with a steam plant.
Take any armored cruiser completed before out of the mix. The cruisers built immeadiately around the time of Dreadnaught were much larger than the ones built around the turn of the century. The ones built around the turn of ithe century were around 6000 tons and were much smaller than the Minotaur and Tennessee which were built less than a decade later. All of the armored cruisers in the game (IRC) are these large armored cruisers. Even the Greek armored cruiser is one of these large armored cruisers. Based on that, and my assumption (dangerous word, I know) that if a country was going to build a slow non-treaty cruiser it would be one of the large designs. For the armored cruisers, compare the late cruisers, Scharnhorst, Defence, Tennessee and Georgeos Averoff. Those should be good representative cruisers for extant cruisers and hypothetical new construction.
That makes sense. I think that would have held true for most other nations if construction of that those types of ships had happened.
I think that Leander is the treaty cruiser that the British wanted to build. They didn't build the Southampton-class until they saw the size of Japanese and US treaty cruisers. I don't think that they compare as well to the US Cleveland-class light cruisers or the later Fiji-class cruisers. If it is purely a matter of a class name than a stat change, than I guess that it makes sense. Any new treaty light cruisers built by Britain would be Southampton-class.
In terms of gunnery control the Leander-class were superior to the light cruisers that were the concept of the model. The ones that I visualized for the model were cruisers like the Omaha and the Kitakami. The Leander-class were radically different from those ships in terms of design.
Not a problem. You are making the naval mod even better. I don't claim to know everything about naval matters and I learn something new every time that I respond to one of these messages. MDow
mhitchens1963 said:Summary of proposals from me
I think this will be post #970, so remember that number
Add an escort sloop type in the destroyers
Matedow is in agreement here, so it's just debating what's an escort sloop and what's a colonial sloop
I have that written. I am going to have to wait unti lI get back to shore to finish that project.
OK.
Armored cruisers need to be have larger defense ratings than a treaty heavy cruiser. They have more armor and are phisically larger than their newer cousins. The examples that were listed earlier spaned the entire time frame for armored cruisers. Many of those were obsolete at the beginning of the first world war. The Battle of Coronel showed that not all armored cruisers are created equal. The newer Scarnhorst and Gneisenau defeated older armored cruisers. The model is based on the concept of the 2nd Generation armored cruisers like the Scharnhorst, Defense, and Tennessee class armored cruisers. These ships were almost as large as some of the pre-dreadnaught battleships and larger than some of the smaller ones. Many ships were sunk by single torpedoes. The example of the Abokur (sp?) and crew that were sunk is misleading. Those cruisers were considered obsolete by contemporary observers. They shouldn't have been where they were. The US treaty heavy cruisers didn't fare well at the Battle of Savo Island where their light armor made them vulnerable to damage.
Already in the next version.
The stats for the cruisers with in the OOB take that into account already. Their attack ratings have been lower to account for their lower number of guns.
I'll take a look at it.
My brain is dead. I will look at the battleships later :wacko:
I am sorry that I haven't been available lately to be much help. Thank you to all of you that have stepped up in my absense. MDow
Michael: Drop me an e-mail with your model changes and a summary of everything that you have suggested. dow_mike at hotmail dot com
UK OOB, sloops, battleships
First of all, I think naval mod is great and spared me a lot, lot, lot work.
However, based on brief experience with Royal Navy of C.O.R.E 0.71, I feel obliged to mention two adjustments I simply had to made.
RN in 1936 C.O.R.E. seems to own about 20 "sloops", with the cruiser supply requirements. They are classified as Black Swan class.
Black Swan and its predestor "Bittern" were LONG range AA escort sloops. With 6-8 dual purpose 4inch guns much more than an average light cruiser (pre-treaty) in terms of AA capacity. So they just dont fit into the stats of "sloop" with range of 3000nm.
I solved the problem by renaming the model to "colonial sloop" which largely didn't exist in RN, so one year later I scraped all units of the class.
Also in 1936 UK OOB you can notice Home Fleet contains Rodney and Nelson battleships of KING GEORGE V class. I couldn't live with that. So I created Rodney class (so as not to have mingle with Nelson class which is s predreadnought or what). Rodney class is now UK treaty battleship. KING GEORGE V is fast treaty battleship, one that still has to be researched by UK in 1936.
Not ideal but better IMHO
First of all, I think naval mod is great and spared me a lot, lot, lot work.
However, based on brief experience with Royal Navy of C.O.R.E 0.71, I feel obliged to mention two adjustments I simply had to made.
RN in 1936 C.O.R.E. seems to own about 20 "sloops", with the cruiser supply requirements. They are classified as Black Swan class.
Black Swan and its predestor "Bittern" were LONG range AA escort sloops. With 6-8 dual purpose 4inch guns much more than an average light cruiser (pre-treaty) in terms of AA capacity. So they just dont fit into the stats of "sloop" with range of 3000nm.
I solved the problem by renaming the model to "colonial sloop" which largely didn't exist in RN, so one year later I scraped all units of the class.
Also in 1936 UK OOB you can notice Home Fleet contains Rodney and Nelson battleships of KING GEORGE V class. I couldn't live with that. So I created Rodney class (so as not to have mingle with Nelson class which is s predreadnought or what). Rodney class is now UK treaty battleship. KING GEORGE V is fast treaty battleship, one that still has to be researched by UK in 1936.
Not ideal but better IMHO
renwor said:
We've had a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG conversation about this and sloops are already slated to be change with most of the UK's sloops being turned into the destroyer model 'escort sloop'
I'll get to this tommorow (or better yet, maybe even MateDow) but I'm really tired right now!
Semi-Lobster said:
I'am coming in late on this conversation, however, I thought that I might mention about 20 years ago, played an interesting game called "fletcher Pratt's Naval Wargame". It had a series of well researched penetration tables which seemed to do a good job at statistically simulating the interaction of naval artillery vs. armour (belt & deck) in naval warfare. It also had rules for torpedoes & air launched bombs. The game, I think, came out of the Naval War College. We used core data from Janes fignting ships to play the game.