Topside and load capacity.

[Epsilon442]

I would be interested to see how other players have found building missile cruisers in the 1960/70. I found the topside and load capacity to be too restrictive when it came to the amount of SAMs / SSMs you could put on a ship of a given displacement. trying to build historical ships especial soviet missile cruisers was not practical.

[WM_NWS]

If you can, let us know which ships you are trying to emulate, and what your results are, and we will evaluate those and check for possible improvements.

(If you can link to a save game with your designs it would help us to analyze them...)

Thanks!

[Epsilon442]

As an example take the kara class 1968
34 knots 9700 tons
2x quad ss-n-14
24 x SA-N-6 grumble(S-300)
2x dual SA-N-3 goblet(80 missile reloads)
2 x twin 3 inch autoloaders
4x30mm ciws
2x5 533mm torpedo tubes
Helipad with one ka-25

Let’s try in rule the waves 3
9700t hull 34knots gas turbine
2x medium SSM representing the SS-N-14
1x heavy SAM representing the 3-300(set to 24 reloads)
2x light SAMs representing the SA-N-3(can only have 35 reloads each 10 short)
2x 5tube torpedo launchers
2x 3inch guns (DP, Auto loder,2xFC, electro optical director)
4x light AA (ciws, radar director)
Radar capacity 6
Helipad + hanger + 1 helicopter
This results in a topside load of 170 of 144

topside load:
1 x 2 Main gun turret : 4
1 x 2 Main gun turret : 4
4 LAA (CIWS): 20
2 directors (Electro optical director): 12
1 x 5 Torpedo mount: 6
1 x 5 Torpedo mount: 6
1 x 2 Heavy SAM: 38
1 x 2 Light SAM: 11
1 x 2 Light SAM: 11
1 x 4 Medium SSM: 13
1 x 4 Medium SSM: 13
Sensors for 3 different missile types: 9
6 Radar capacity: 12
Helipad: 5
Hangar for 1 aircraft: 6
Total topside load points: 170
Topside capacity: 144
Design is top heavy!

[Epsilon442]

Kresta class
7535 tons 34kt oil/steam turbine.
2x 4 SS-N-15
2X dual SA-N-3 goblet (72 missiles)
4x 30mm ciws
2x 57mm radar AA
2x 5 torpedo tubes
4x ASW rocket launchers.
1 x helicopter

In RTW3
7600 tons 34kt oil+turbine
2x quad M SSM
2X L SAM (35 reloads each)
2x Medium AA(radar dir)
4X light AA(CIWS)
2X 5 tube torpedo mount
ASW mortor/rockets
Enhanced sonar
Radar limit 6
Hanger + helicopter + pad

Topside load 158 of 144
Topside load:
4 LAA (CIWS): 20
2 MAA (Radar directed): 10
2 AA Directors: 10
1 x 4 Medium SSM: 13
1 x 4 Medium SSM: 13
1 x 4 Light SAM: 26
1 x 4 Light SAM: 26
1 x 5 Torpedo mount: 6
1 x 5 Torpedo mount: 6
Sensors for 2 different missile types: 4
ASW mortar: 1
6 Radar capacity: 12
Helipad: 5
Hangar for 1 aircraft: 6
Total topside load points: 158
Topside capacity: 144
Design is top heavy!

design not legal cant identify ship type.

[Epsilon442]

Kynda-class cruiser (project 58)
5500t 34kt
2x4 SS-N-3b
1x twin SA-N-1 Goa
2x dual 76mm
2x ASW mortars/rockets (RBU-6000)
2 x3 tube torpedoes
Helipad

In RTW 3
5500t 34kt oil + turbine
2 x quad H SSM(SS-N-3b was a 5000kg missile)
1x dual M SAM
2 x 3 tube torpedoes
2x dual 3in guns(DP, Autoloader)
ASW rocket and sonar
Helipad
Radar limit 6
Topside capacity 110 of 113 however 400t overweight

[josmith]

Being top-heavy does not exclude the design from being used in the game, as it did not preclude the use of a top-heavy design in real life. I would venture to guess that each of the ships mentioned above would be considered to be top-heavy if in a NATO navy. Perhaps the fact that they are top-heavy in the game is an accurate representation of their historical condition.

I'm not sure that the Azov is a reasonable example for comparison. The Azov was the only ship in the class to carry the SA-N-6 Grumbler (certainly an HSAM in RTW3) and it was considered an experimental installation. The system was not installed in any of the other Kara class, including those laid down after the Azov, I suspect because the system made the ship top heavy. The ship is a bit out of scope for comparison in the game; while the Kara-class was first laid down in 1968, the Azov herself was laid down in 1972 and did not commission until 1975.

The other Kara class ships were equipped with SA-N-3 Goblets, which would be considered an MSAM in RTW3 and SA-N-4 Geckos, which were definitely LSAMs. With the exception of the experimental Azov, the Karas did not carry anything that could be considered an HSAM even in the late 70s. However, even with this reduced missile suite the game struggles to accommodate a standard Kara class. Fully equipped, a "standard" Kara comes in at 155 TSP versus the 144 available in the game. Probably this is not too far off the reality.

However, I would not insist that the values used in the game are completely accurate. Some adjustment might be called for.

[Epsilon442]

you can go a bit over however you will see "Error! Ship is dangerously top heavy! Reduce AA guns or other topside equipment!" if you go to far. The examples I used are extreme but they where intended to prove the point a 1972 design is still equipment wise very close to the end of the game. I feel the topside space calculation could use some work especially as it scales with low and high displacements. US designs generally work as expected however I find a lot of the soviet stuff ends up borderline or over weight.

[WM_NWS]

Certainly some of those ship designs would be pegged as considerably top-heavy by, well, more 'normal' naval standards than what the Soviet navy of the era would utilize :-)

But the topside system can certainly be tweaked as needed on our end, but we need to be careful not to swing too far in either direction.

[Epsilon442]

Maybe it could be a national spirit or doctrine option. Allow the player an extra percentage of topside capacity at the cost of ship performance and vulnerability. sort of a combination of oxygen torps and low freeboard.

I suppose the experiments with naval S-300s in the early 70s could be considered a early form of VLS with the missiles stored in the hull. where as topside system more or less models the weight and size of a rail mounted SAM. looks like my plans for a low tech Slava/kirov will have to wait for rule the waves 4

[josmith]

The largest guns on the Kresta were her 57mm DP guns, so your Kresta design should probably have 3" DP main guns with AA director instead of the MAA with radar that you have installed. The game will reject your cruiser design if there are no main guns. You also use 4-rail launchers for the light SAM mounts. The Kresta had two 2-tube launchers. 4-tube LSAMs are very expensive in topside points in RTW3. You spent an extra 30 topside points for those LSAMs compared to a set of 2-rail launchers. Those two issues caused your topside points to be excessive..

[Epsilon442]

oh i missed the quad rail light SAM. With the mistakes fixed it not to far over weight. Getting the game to recognise it as a legal ship is still interesting if you build it from scratch the game wont let you classify it as a CL. However if you generate a cruiser and then remove everything and use that as a template it works.

[khorne8]

Epsilon442 の投稿を引用：

you can go a bit over however you will see "Error! Ship is dangerously top heavy! Reduce AA guns or other topside equipment!" if you go to far.

Sorry to necro this thread, but I just did some experimentation and I think I can nail it down a bit more specifically than that.

• Up to 100% of topside load capacity, there is no problem (of course).
  
• Between 101% and 110%, "topside equipment limit exceeded."
  
• Above 110%, "ship is dangerously top heavy."

I'm not certain about this, I haven't looked at the code, but the rule seems to hold. Question for someone who has looked at the code, then: what's the difference between the penalties for the two levels of excess topweight? I'm quite tempted to go to 110% on missile ships.

[ThatZenoGuy]

Wait, so Quad LSAM is heavier than 2 2rail SAM? Is that right?