Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

The cruiser design is good. If you want to take a design risk, you can reduce the tonnage of the weaponry a bit. (Because some parts of the turret structure are shared with other cannons).

Edit: Anyway, update should be fixed, now I just need to process the military.

[Taricus]

Say... about 50 tons off per two cannons?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

"Great White" class heavy cruiser:
10,000 tons displacement (Approx.)
Six 300mm guns, placed in three turrets. Two placed at the front, one at the rear (Totalling 1400 tons)
2,800 tons for diesel propulsion (@20Kw a ton, equals 32000Kw for use)
20-40 tons for SONAR system
2,400 tons cruiser parts
2,500 tons armour
80 15mm MGACs

Three questions:
a) Where will we build it?  We have no large enough drydocks. You want to dedicate most of our industrial might to build it?
b) Don't you think that several hundreds of diesel engines... is not the best idea. No gearing system gonna manage that. If you mean that we are developing huge diesels like deutchland class had, than please, mention it  but please remember that we have some problems with diesel fuel. Yes, coal powered steam engines is not the best solution, but we can't put our Navy in the same situatrionm that Regia Marina had
c) Why no secondary guns at all?

[10ebbor10]

Say... about 50 tons off per two cannons?

That would be about it yes.

On a side note, the per ton design is using generic engines that are procured from somewhere. Hammerspace, presumably. They're more or less guaranteed to work decently. If you don't get any flaws.

[3_14159]

@Taricus:
The RADAR (and autocannons) thought was more to provide at least a bit more protection against aircraft. It's 50t, that's less than one percent of the tonnage. But I can see why you don't want it.
In any case, I do want more autocannons. Add more anti-aircraft armament in general. I'd say at least a hundred tons for them.

The problem is, if I've understood the rules correctly, that we need two turns of only expanding dockyards to build that design. That seem not really realistic.

@UR: That's not the truck engine (as it would give us between 200kW and 50kW depending on the wanted range), but the Naval engine we haven't explicitly designed (at least I think so).

[Taricus]

It's an "All big gun" ship. No point wasting tonnage on a smaller gun it can't use since the big guns destroyed the enemy, and we don't have any suitable dual-purpose guns anyway. As for the engines, I can swap them out for a large steam turbine (If we have one).

And Pi, the 30mm is something I'm not mounting until it's issues are fixed. Same goes for the radar.

[Patrick Hunt]

Anyone against bait and traps?

Using old ships to pull enemy ships and planes awat from normal routes into ambushes?

Good way to guarantee numerical edge for us and to punish the enemy forces that are raiding us.

If we make them bleed enough they'll back off and the loss of a few out dated ships, or the same tactic with ravens. Is well worth the price to chew up the enemies raider ships and it's bomber force which is likely guarded by the new fighters.

We can catch them in smaller groups a few times before they realize so we can thin them out a bit.

[10ebbor10]

The problem is, if I've understood the rules correctly, that we need two turns of only expanding dockyards to build that design. That seem not really realistic.

You could try converting an existing civilian shipyard, or try something savy to bypass the usual rules. You're a communistic country, executing large projects through excessive manpower is kind off a speciality.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

If we would go for cruiser that big and put effort to bring 10,000t capable

10,000 displacement

four 360mm guns in two twin turrets
Eight to Twelve unarmored 160mm mounts on sides  (without turrets they shouldn't be that heavy. And losing secondary arnanment is not the end of the world)
8 quad 30mm guns (those are innacurate, but quads are made to create wall of fire on short range, not aim),  20 twin lmgs (those are more accurate than heavier HMG and easier to aim, also we have Hunters and Protectors for AA escorts) All unarmored. This ship shouldn't have long range AA weapons, why? It has Protectors and Hunters as very effective AA escorts. It needs only a way to protect itself against aircrafts that somehow  come too close, no need for long ranged 15mm or 40mm guns
Radar ( I don't care that it's bad, will replace it later. And IT MUST KNOW when enemy aircrafts incoming to call for Sparrows)
Sonar
Steam engine (Our economics dictate that) Or mixed steam\diesel engine (steam for cruising, diesel+steam for combat)
And All or nothing armor

Now THAT is a capital ship that will show enemy to not mess with us.  It has a lot of guns to blast all that pesky destroyers that come closer  for torpeding, it has more larger firepower at medium range in exchange for 33% less power on long range.  (remember that while 160mm is 6,5 times lighter shellwise, it fires faster) All heavy guns ship is vulnerable, Drednought is a right way to do a ship, but overdoing it is not nice

_________________

10ebbor10,
Is putting Sonar on hunter in exchange for some mines too complex to be done without designing?[/b]

[10ebbor10]

You could do it without designing, but it would be rather improvised. The radar and power generation would be out in the open, which might not be good to prevent corrosion.

[Patrick Hunt]

Hey Ebbor, the enemy raider ships are operating in several groups each one being a raider and a few smaller ships right? Not one big group?

[10ebbor10]

If it makes sense for them to do so, they probably do.

[Taricus]

All or nothing armour... doesn't seem too practical to me, We can make some locations have somewhat thicker armour. The engine was replaced by steam turbines in the suggestion though. And as I said, until the 30mm gets it's issues sorted, I'm using it at all. Radar, can be retrofitted onto the ship after we get a good version (Since the current one can't even detect an osprey reliably.)

But, I can see if I can stick on some lighter guns, if someone can link me to where such a gun was completed in a turn. (Thus, I can add it since I know the stats on it)

[Patrick Hunt]

Well it's how I'd do it, small and fast is best for raiders.

Vulnerable as well though to attacks like I enjoy.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

All or nothing armour... doesn't seem too practical to me, We can make some locations have somewhat thicker armour.

It is practical.. If enemy heavy shell blasts crew quaters, that's unpleasant. If Enemy heavy shell blasts into a magazine or engine... Ship is basically dead.

Since the current one can't even detect an osprey reliably.

It can detect large groups of aircrafts... And I suspect that it can detect enemy ships.  Not reliable not equals to useless

And as I said, until the 30mm gets it's issues sorted, I'm using it at all.

What of it's issues are that bad for naval use?