Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Report this post
1. Absolutely not the same thing. The Pocket Battleship originated as a creative way to get around restrictions placed on German shipbuilding, while producing a ship that would be competent as a raider. They had large guns, but were slower and had very similar protection to contemporary heavy cruisers. They most certainly belong under the 'CA' category (which is what the Germans themselves reclassified them in 1939). The first generation PB's (ie. Deutschland class) were barely larger than big treaty CA's, and a lot of that was to get the range they needed.
The Large Cruisers on the other hand, are not at all similar. They are actually under the 'BC' classification in game, because that is the closest fit to them, but their origins are that of a 'supersized' heavy cruiser intended for killing other cruisers. They carried notably better firepower than contemporary heavy cruisers, were much better armoured, and just as fast. If you look at their stats this is reflected in game. There are 2.5x or more the size of treaty heavy cruisers, outmassing some of the early battleships (speed is expensive in terms of weight).
(Will address #2 last because of how long it is)
3. I debated including Escort Carriers, but there are two problems with this. Firstly, they are already in the Doctrines tree as a passive bonus to escort efficiency, and thus that would need to be reworked somewhat. Secondly, and more importantly, is that they were not built for naval engagements, but for escort work, and I am not sure if the AI can handle that at the moment. In the last version I have begun experimenting with 'escort oriented' units like the DE, but it remains to be seen how that pans out. If they are added, they would either be a subtech of CVLs or CVs (or shared like the DE) in the 1935, 39 and 43 dates. There might be hidden techs for odd ships from before that which fall under 'CVE' like HMS Argus, the same way Pre-Dreads are handled.
4. The Omaha design dates from 1916, they were laid down in 1918, and thus are more suited to that slot. They might need a little boost to their stats as a variant since they are fairly well armed for that date, but a lot of those guns are casemated with all the problems that brings.
2. That is one confusing post. The Fast BB and Superheavy BB lines most definately do not represent the same thing, and the Iowa has no place anywhere on the Superheavy line - her firepower and protection are virtually the same as on the 1939 'regular' BBs like the South Dakota and Lion.
Likewise, the Iowa is no way a 'precedent' to the Montana - they were developed based on different requirements, and Montana has her roots in North Carolina. I'm not quite sure what you mean she isn't a contemporary fast battleship, because she is the ship that defines that class. There was nothing else built in that category in the world, so yes, she is a precedent, to an entirely new class (or rather, she is the first to actually be built to that concept, the original 'fast battleship' class goes back to designs like G3). The fast BB class basically has to be there so that Iowa (and ships like her others might build) can be represented properly, while maintaining a logical development path.
Im not going to address the second paragraph because I can't really tell what you are trying to say there, save that I think you have some misconceptions about ship design.
1. I guess if the Large Cruisers are in the BC line then that is my mistake, from the Picture on the mod page, (the first one that shows the top half of the American Naval Tree) the Alaska class, which was a Large/Super cruiser, is in line with the PBB's. I so hardly ever play Americans and I haven't since I installed the mod, so I guess that's my mistake.
3. I guess that makes sense, I suppose rebalancing tech's would be annoying just for one class of ship to be added to the game. CVE class names could be added to the CVL line for flavour and line completeion purposes, in the earlier tech slots perhaps?
4. I suppose your right but there are other Cruisers that could be in that slot, none come to mind at the moment, I was just thinking that since most of the American CL force during the war were of the Large and AA type, the regular light cruiser line was lacking and that it could be adjusted to accomodate for that fact.
2. Sorry, I didn't explain myself well enough, I'll try to keep this as short as possible. Basically what I meant was that the Iowa was an incredibly large battleship, the largest built by the Americans, I don't believe it was too much smaller than the conieved dimensions of the Montana, nor that much faster. They shared the same 16"/50 guns, or rather they would have if Montana was built, and the armoring was somewhat similar. Based on these comparisons and how the Iowa and Montana are generally somewhat similar, not in design necessarily, but in what they could do, the Iowa should be moved prior to the Montana, or the Montana moved after the Iowa.
In summary, classing based on statistical similarity.
On a secondary note for that point, the Iowa was not the first Fast Battleship built by any means, there were plenty built prior to the war. Now, I don't know how you classify Fast Battleships, but maybe this is why we are having a little bit of a misunderstanding here. I'm going purely by definiton, "A Fast Battleship is a battleship that emphasises speed without undue compromise of either armor or armament."
That's all for now.
Regards,
EH
1. Yeah, the tree layout could be improved a little, but it hasn't been a priority. I did add a 'Fast Battleship' label to that section of the tree, so I might do the same to the CBs.
3. They could, but the problem is that the early CVLs still have CVL stats, most notably speeds in the 30 knot area, whereas CVEs because of their escort role, often got merchant grade machinery which could only make 18-20 knots, though were rather efficient steamers. So then we end up with ship class names not matching stats at all, which is one of the goals to avoid here.
4. I actually did some thinking after my reply to you, and the Omaha's were bumped up to CL2 now. I added the '5750t Scout Cruiser' which is one of the 1915-1917 design studies that lead to Omaha in as the CL1 slot. The CA1 slot also got the 8750t Scout Cruiser study which is one of the precursors to the Pensacola.
2. I think the problem is a misconception about the Iowa's vs the Montanas. Yes, the Iowa's were big, but for those 12,000 tons that they added compared to the South Dakota, they added essentially a slightly better gun, and 5 knots of speed. As I said before, speed is about the most expensive thing (in terms of weight) you can add to a ship after a certain point (~21-25 knots is the 'sweetspot' for most battleship size hulls, depending slightly on hullform).
While the Iowa's were almost as long as the Montana's, the difference in displacement is significant. The Iowa's were around 48,000t standard, the Montana's would have been over 60,000t, just a little shy of Yamato.
The Iowa's made 32-33 knots at combat displacements, the Montana's were planned to make 28, which is also a fairly big difference.
In terms of firepower, yes, they have the same gun, though Montana's had a more heavily protected turret for them, and of course 4 vs 3. Protection is where the biggest difference is though - the Montana's were much better protected, with a 409mm belt vs the Iowa's 307mm, plus a better coverage for that belt. They also had much better deck protection. The Montana's actually had a sizeable IZ against their own shells or those of Yamato, compared to Iowa which had almost no IZ against her own and none against Yamato.
Based on the above, I really can't see them having much statistical similarity. Montana has an edge in terms of protection, firepower, and sheer durability due to her size, while Iowa is capable of 32-33 knots. This last point is also why the Fast BB's were split out from the 'Regular' BBs, since those 5 knots required a ship almost 33% larger and more expensive then the comparable 'regular' BB (South Dakota).
On the last note, there were certainly a lot of contenders for 'Fast Battleship' before that, and many that probably would have been called that had they been completed (as said, the G3 designs comes to mind, as does the Kii class). The problems is that none of them really saw light of day, and while Hood might be contender (she had the firepower and armour of a Queen Elizabeth essentially), she did end up sacrificing protection/firepower for that speed, because her contemporaries are Nelson, Nagato and Colorado, all of which would be very tough opponents for her. Had Hood been built at the same time or a year or two after the QE's, I would say she was first.
Iowa is the first to earn the distinction of adding that speed (in this case 5 knots, from the 'typical' speed of the day of 27-28 knots to 32-33), while still being a match for contemporary BB's like South Dakota in terms of firepower and protection. The G3's would have done exactly the same at the time of their design, by matching designs like Colorado, Tosa, etc. while still being a fair bit faster.
tldr; Yeah, I think it comes down to how you define it.
This will be a fairly short one since I'm in mobile.
1. I wouldn't worry about making a separate CB header. There were very few of thwm and imo not worth the effort.
3. That's perfectly fair. But if you find a way to do CVE's without to much rearranging and rebalacing I'd love to see them in the game.
4. Did either of those designs have a concept class name?
2. I honestly didn't know that the two classes were that different, that's interesting. The more you know I guess.
As for the history of Fast BB's, yeah now that I think about it, the Iowa was probably the first F.BB that could hit at and above it's weight.
On a side note, what is IZ?
6500t Scout Cruiser - http://shipscribe.com/styles/S-584/images/s-file/s584112c.htm
8250t Scout Cruiser - http://shipscribe.com/styles/S-584/images/s-file/s584176c.htm
Also, I mentioned 5750t in the last post, I meant the 6500t above.
2. IZ refers to the 'Immune/Immunity Zone', which is the band of ranges in which the ships citadel is (theoretically) impervious to fire from the incoming caliber. It happens when the range is far enough that shells will no longer be able to penetrate its belt (generally because of too high angle of fall and too low velocity), while still being incapable of penetrating its deck (because of too shallow angle of fall). Those that have no IZ implies that the range at which the belt stops being penetrable, the deck is already vulnerable to plunging fire.
This zone is different for every ship/armour layout vs every caliber, though a lot of designs will quote their IZ against their own guns in some document. While varying wildly because of the possible combinations, its generally in the 16-18,000 to 22-25,000 yard band for most treaty battleships.