Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About BattleshipOfDestruction

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Software Development, Battleship Combat, Designing Warships, Historical Accuracy

Recent Profile Visitors

26 profile views
  1. Yes, this is very similar to my view on how it should be done. Also, to be honest, Since HMS Hood's hull, towers and shape of turrets will be added, it is safe to assume Bismarck would be too. In general, there should be a hull and relevant main and secondary tower for each general era specific to the nation for each ship class whenever available. I would definitely like to know if the Japanese nation would get the Nagato Hull and it's pagoda tower along with the Kongou tower for the possibility of authentic rebuilds of Fuso and Ise. The turrets though are also in need of a bit of a upgrade too, they should be shaped like the real mounts that were available for each nation. For example an American 8" armed heavy cruiser should not be carrying Japanese 8" mounts and likewise a 16" armed Iowa class rebuild should not carry the same turret design as the Yamato Class battleship. Most European nations had similar main and secondary towers for each respective era until the modern era, though some technologically advanced ones exist; such as the ones found on Bismarck, Littorio, King George V, Nelson, Dunkerque, Richelieu, etc. The Japanese were the most unique with their refit versions of their existing Battlecruisers and Fast Battleships adding a pagoda tower design that is distinctly similar to the Domjon of a traditional Japanese Castle and if they would have built these ships from scratch in the 1930s would probably have used the same distinct pagoda tower. To me at present, sometimes an American battleship feels Japanese and sometimes a German battleship seems more British. One critical thing that is lacking in the ship designer is the lack of modern light cruiser and destroyer hulls for all navies that had modern designs by 1940. Besides these suggestions I don't particularly have a problem with anything else.
  2. We need more Barbette options in terms of both sizing and height and the ability to place them and guns closer together. Also, to do a period correct Yamato-Class Battleship, there needs to be a secondary Barbette big enough to fit a triple 6" gun mount and tall enough to clear the height of a superfiring layout of 2 18" gun turrets. Basically the way I see it is that there is a Barbette option for every two calibers of main guns and the Barbette changes shape to fit the guns when they are placed on the ship. Each Barbette will have three heights so you can have up to a 3 high superfiring design to keep the limitations for stability of a ship in mind. The only way you could possibly do a three turret superfiring arrangement on a battleship for example was if you were designing a super battleship because of the added stability of a wider and heavier hull. If you were to attempt a triple superfiring arrangement on an Iowa Class Warship hull, it would be easier to capsize due to the forces at work. Even Yamato, could not fit a third 18" gun turret in a superfiring layout despite her massive size because the hull was not stable enough for a third turret at an increased height. The maximum that she could hope for in terms of design was the 6" turret placed in a tall Barbette before and after her superstructure as part of her secondary suite.
  3. What does being a "World of" Player got to do with anything relevant here. I was a WoWs player at one time or another and yes the implementation of historical warships was no where near the way it should be which is part of the reason I quit that game; that fact combined with the terrible business practices of the Wargaming devs which I hated with a burning passion. Again, this is besides the point. Mainly what I am saying is that a lot of the information I have about warships is old and fragmentary considering a lot of the books I have are out of print from the 1950s and 60s and what my grandfather who served on USS Kimbery (DD-521) knew about naval ship design from what he told me about the pacific war. Some historians of that period weren't as accurate as they could of been and that is partially what is at fault here. Thank you to everyone for your feedback on the points I got wrong and I hope I will do better next time.
  4. Hi, I am BattleshipofDestruction and welcome to this guide on historical ship design. I have been fascinated with Naval Technology since my grandfather told me the stories from his WWII service in the US Navy. This will be a general guide and thus will not be specific to any particular era of ship design. It is simply a primer to introduce you to how ships were historically designed and also pros and cons of each design decision so you can make more informed decisions with your own fleets when the campaign releases. This information comes from years of obsessive research into the subject and lots of reading on the subject which may have some inconsistencies. This may not represent how the mechanics are in the actual game yet or by release. First off, let us talk about the general characteristics of the existing ship classes available to design in the current version of Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts. This will cycle from the smallest ship to the largest of them all. The Torpedo Boat: Beginning with the humble torpedo boat we see it is a very small maneuverable craft with no armor to speak of. In early technology this little boat can knife through the water faster than a destroyer while still delivering a fairly devastating payload of torpedoes to even the largest ships. The general design schematics of torpedo boats is that they are armed primarily with torpedoes and their auxiliary weapons are guns of a caliber of 5 inch or less. These auxiliary armaments are sparse, usually only a few turrets, because the main job of a torpedo boat is to deliver large spreads of torpedoes to the target while under fire. Early technology will let you access single center-line torpedoes, but later technology will allow you to mount more intimidating numbers of torpedoes. The main advantage of such a craft is its speed and maneuverability to stay out of trouble and its strong torpedo armament and also they can be made very cheaply in a relative sense. The disadvantage is being that they are not armored and have minimal bulkheads, any larger ship that has accurate cannons should be able to send a torpedo boat to the bottom in only one or two hits due to the over-penetration and flooding that occurs because of it. The modern torpedo boat is often armed with depth charges for anti-submarine duty. The Destroyer: The Destroyer is a very effective tool to attack larger surface ships and raid convoys. They were also used historically for anti-submarine warfare (commonly abbreviated ASW). They are more armored than a torpedo boat and are also a direct descendant from the previous ship class. They are typically armed with large numbers of 5 inch guns in up to dual mounts. They are slightly less maneuverable and fast than a torpedo boat, but they still inherit a strong torpedo armament from the torpedo boat, both as a center-line design and like cruisers, sometimes port and starboard mounted. Destroyers have much more bulkheads than the Torpedo boat, due to its larger size and added armor, however a destroyer's armor is inadequate against even some light cruisers sporting 6 inch guns. Like the torpedo boat, a destroyer's speed and maneuverability, in addition to being able to smokescreen a battleship or larger fleet unit makes it a very versatile ship class, built to adapt to most situations. Although a support craft by designation, it can do combat against light cruisers and larger units as long as a tactical maneuver is used called "chasing splashes". This classic defensive tactic is used to follow the columns of water from impacting enemy shells; gambling that the enemy gunners do not shoot in the same place twice and instead adjust their rangefinders which impedes their accuracy. Such a tactic was used to great effect in the WWII Battle Off Samar by Destroyer USS Johnston. Never underestimate the destroyer as it can surprise you and your fleet as it can the enemy with your own destroyers. Common designs include the Fletcher and Allen M. Summer Class by the US Navy and the Fubuki Class of the IJN. The Protected Cruiser: This version of the cruiser is before the designations of cruisers varied between "light" and "heavy" cruisers which were popularized by the Washington naval treaty set forth after World War I. They were typically medium to heavily armored for their time and could hunt destroyers and rain down high explosive fire on larger fleet units to cause fires. Most protected cruisers had a main armament of 5 inch guns or 6 inch guns primarily in casemates, but sometimes located in dual mounted turrets (one bow, one stern) on the ship. This cruiser typically wasn't fast enough to catch a destroyer, however it could effectively deal with destroyers in self-defense and provide fire support against larger surface targets. Although their speed by mid 20th century standards were quite poor (most achieved only 20 knots) they did have high broadside capability for those smaller guns and were decently well armored despite their size. The Modern Light Cruiser: The Light Cruiser was borne out of the idea of a faster cruiser with 5-6 inch guns that would be able to effectively hunt down destroyers while still having high amounts of fire support available during large fleet engagements and also shore bombardment. Their main armament is mainly found in dual or triple mounted turrets, though single turrets were common in the early years. Some were built with armor that could stop destroyer caliber weaponry, other than the torpedo, while others could still combat against heavier cruisers with their armor being thicker than the other common light cruiser role. Some cruisers, both light and heavy were armed with "wing" mounted torpedoes. These were useful for impeding an enemy advance and in single combat against a superior enemy fleet unit such as a battlecruiser or battleship of any kind. Most Japanese cruisers were fitted with torpedoes, while US cruisers tended to favor all-gun concepts for fire support and destroyer hunting roles. They have decent speed and maneuverability, some even matching destroyers, and they do have increased armor, though not often as protected as a heavy cruiser. They do have a normal amount of bulkheads to prevent flooding from being a bigger threat, though they still succumb to torpedoes just as much as destroyers do as they lack torpedo protection. Light cruisers are also purpose built commerce raiders so they can in-essence, be very well suited to destroying armed convoys of supplies that are only protected by destroyers. During WWII, most light cruisers in US service used Dual purpose main batteries to fire Anti-Aircraft shells to combat enemy pilots. As such light cruisers are also historically useful for such a role when purpose built for it. Examples of this class include the Atlanta and Cleveland class of the US Navy and the Mogami Washington Treaty "Light Cruiser" of the IJN. The Modern Heavy Cruiser: The heavy cruiser was born out of the necessity to diversify the design of a cruiser after the protected cruiser design became obsolete. They are usually armed with 8 inch guns in dual or triple turrets, though single turrets were indeed common in the early years. These are the most likely cruisers to be able to combat larger fleet units effectively while still being a light cruiser killer of sorts. They are typically slightly slower and less maneuverable than a typical light cruiser, but that trade-off is in favor of increased armor to defend against other 8 inch armed warships. The 8 inch HE shells were particularly nasty to the superstructures of enemy battlecruisers and battleships, and also their less protected deck on the bow. These cruisers are able to set fires more easily due to the increase in caliber. They also frequently come armed with torpedoes, but that design decision is not set in stone, unlike a destroyer which survives on lots of small guns and torpedoes. Again the US and Japanese viewpoints on a Heavy cruiser's role differs from that of an all gun fire supporter or a balanced large fleet unit. They also typically had more secondary batteries of 5 inch caliber compared to light cruisers. Armor is still an issue against battlecruisers and battleships, but although it can be a problem against heavy cruisers with the same armor layout, it is otherwise unsinkable against other smaller fleet units unless it is hit by a torpedo. Examples of this class include the Tone-Class of the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Pensicola Class of the US Navy. The Battlecruiser: The Battlecruiser is kind of a stepchild of a heavy cruiser and a battleship. It is a heavy cruiser killer that has the same speed and maneuverability as a heavy cruiser and slightly higher armor to combat those units, while having the big guns typically found on full battleships. This means that the caliber of the big guns can vary greatly from ship to ship and era to era. The most general range for this class is from 11 inch guns if you count the Deutchesland Class of Battleships as part of that group (commonly referred by British news of the time as Pocket Battleships) to the 15 inch guns of HMS Hood. Other notable examples include the 14 inch armed Kongou-class battlecruiser of the IJN. This design comes with the firepower advantage of a battleship and mostly a secondary suite to match along with comparable speed and maneuverability to a heavy cruiser, but lacks armor to combat larger battleships especially due to the danger of plunging fire at longer ranges. The Pre-Dreadnought: This is the earliest type of battleship and was popular in the 1890s and early 1900s. The engagement distance at the time was rather short due to the inaccuracy of the guns of that period and the lack of sophisticated aiming systems technology. The armor was relatively high enough to deflect rounds of the same general largest caliber that the ship had mounted and because it was a flat trajectory, armor schemes became more focused on protecting the hull instead of the deck as plunging fire was less common. Sporting two to three turrets in dual mounts of 11-13 inch, they were the mainstay of early-modern military fleets. Although armor quality varied between the nations, the thickness of the armor wasn't enough to cause some ships to sink. Just because of the lack of armor quality in some nations, their ships were easier to sink compared to those who were more advanced in steel production. Thus, this battleship-type spurred an arms race began between the nations to find a better way to build battleships. These ships also had ridiculous amounts of casemate mounted secondary armaments of various calibers which was not surprising compared to the relative engagement distance. Also, because not many battleships of that era had torpedo protection, most were mounted with underwater launchers on the broadsides to compensate for not having the guns to penetrate each other. Against any dreadnought or higher, it doesn't stand a chance unless retrofitted with more armor and better weapons. Pre-dreadnoughts are also slow warships, most not exceeding 20 knots, so they cannot hope to compete with more modern ships. Battleships are generally cost prohibitive to smaller navies which is why you need lots of money and raw materials to produce one well-equipped to go toe to toe with another navy's battleship. The Dreadnought/Super Dreadnought: So named after the original semi-dreadnought named HMS Dreadnought, it was also what made the battleship arms race heat up for other nations. Although this achievement was groundbreaking, it did strain military budgets for other nations including the British and lead to the eventual signing of the Washington naval treaty. This was the beginning of the All-Big-Gun concept of battleships that continued into the mid 20th century. The concept was for a battleship to have as many of the same caliber of main armament as possible. This translates to two center-line turrets and up to 4 side mounted turrets of dual mounted 12-14 inch guns. The term-semi-dreadnought was for the early version of a standard dreadnought which had less armor than it's predecessor in exchange for more turrets of it's main armament. The amount of casemates on these ships were reduced to make way for more big guns to be placed on deck. This also allowed for turreted secondaries which came later on in the development of battleships. In the meantime, the ships had minimal secondaries, but instead were bristling with big guns from bow to stern. Later dreadnoughts had center-line mounted turrets and even superfiring ones to increase the effectiveness of the main battery. Some dreadnoughts of Russian design even did away with the superfiring concept to allow for 360 degree turning center-line turrets to increase the number that can fire when angling toward and away from an enemy. The Japanese navy had a large number of dreadnoughts at their disposal at the beginning of World War II and frequently used them in combat to varying effect. The later dreadnoughts are somewhat on par with modern battleships, but even when modernized can be less effective at what they were designed for due to inferior guns and armor. Also their "Turtleback" Armor Scheme, which was popular for late-era dreadnoughts, were vulnerable to engagements at long distances. The super dreadnought is like a dreanought, but were a more stable platform to receive much needed upgrades in caliber (up to 16 inch) and armor against these guns. Examples of the Super dreanoughts were the Battleships of the Standard-Type Program of the US Navy which comprised the Nevada Class, Pennsylvania Class, New Mexico Class, Tennessee Class, and Colorado Class and also the Nagato Class of the IJN. By the time the Super dreadnought came along, the US had pioneered a new more cost effective battleship armor scheme called "all-or-nothing." This type of scheme only protected the most vital parts of the ship in order to not only reduce weight, but increase the amount of armor available to the parts that needed it while reducing armor in non-essential areas. This new scheme became the most effective armor in battleship design for all ranges as it solves the plunging fire problem prevalent with the Turtleback armor scheme. The early semi-dreadnoughts and mid-era dreadnoughts tend to be very slow, most not breaking 22 knots and thus are not effective in a chase with other ships. The cost of these warships was relatively high because of the technology and armor involved, but still command a worthy upgrade to the pre-dreadnoughts. Late-era dreadnoughts and super dreadnoughts featured the first experimentation with torpedo bulges which continued to evolve with the inclusion of multi-bottomed hulls throughout the rest of the age of the battleship. They also sometimes had speed increases that make them also designated Fast Battleships. The Fast/Modern Battleship: This design is essentially a cross between a super dreadnought and a battlecruiser. While partially inheriting a higher speed from the battlecruiser, it still has equal or greater armor and also much higher caliber weaponry than a super dreadnought battleship. They typically are armed with 14-16 inch guns and have slightly less armor than their super dreadnought cousins, but must have armor that can still hold its own against other battleships. This made the design of these ships very difficult to balance firepower, protection and speed while maximizing the capacity for combat with other battleships. Examples of this class are the Iowa-class from the US Navy and Both the Kongou and Nagato Classes (post 1930s refit) of the IJN. Although some of these classes are super dreadnought or battlecruiser in design, their speed is comparatively more than late-era dreadnoughts. The speed was usually ranging from 26-33 knots. The All-Or-Nothing Armor Scheme became standard for most navies implementing modern battleships, however Germany and Japan did evolve the Turtleback armor scheme to include angled underdeck armor that would help deflect any debris from an incoming shell to protect from plunging fire which made them more survivable than existing super dreadnought designs. This design included a plethora of 5 inch secondaries, where the US Iowa Class had the most of these caliber on board. Overall this design is the best battleship design to go for if you are looking for a well balanced battleship navy. These are possibly one of the most cost effective battleships if you choose an all or nothing scheme with a cost effective armor quality. The Super-Battleship: The term Super-battleship was for a warship based on a modern battleship design, which was supersized to even impracticality. They were typically armed or designed with 16-18 inch guns, but some that were never built came with plans for 20 inch guns, specifically the later H-Class proposals for Germany's Plan Z and the Super Yamato which was essentially a Yamato with 20 inch dual mount turrets. Although the Bismarck class was sometimes referred to a super battleship due to its reputation for being very well protected, its fully loaded displacement of 50,300 long tons doesn't make any sense to use the designation compared to the likes of Yamato and the Planned H-Class of Germany's Plan Z. The Yamato was the only Superbattleship built, but other classes that were proposed suggest that this class started at 72,000 long tons fully loaded to exceed well over 120,000 long tons. They also had the deck space for a lot of secondary batteries of 6 or 8 inch caliber and also multiple 5 inch guns with other assorted small arms. The speed of these mammoth ships varied from 20 knots to well over 30 knots for blueprint designs. They also had the best versions of their respective armor schemes in the world. Whereas the Yamato had an enhanced Turtleback armor Scheme to protect against plunging fire, the Montana Class of US design which had an extra 3 gun turret of 16 inch guns and higher protection in an all-or-nothing scheme made it the Yamato's hypothetical equal. The only reason to consider building a battleship of this size is if you wish to have a more qualitative navy because you do not have the industrial capacity to build higher numbers. While on paper, these ships can out-range potentially every ship in other navies and out class their armor, they are still lumbering beasts with very cumbersome maneuverability compared. In addition, the rate of fire of these large caliber naval rifles are so low that even 16 inch guns on lesser ships could outpace them in a gunfight assuming rangefinders and accuracy are equal. In addition, such ships are very costly and take a much longer time to build than smaller battleships. Finally, they are still not invulnerable to torpedoes, although they can take much more of a beating and may be able to survive multiple torpedo hits unscathed due to enhanced damage control, better torpedo bulges, higher number of bulkheads with higher tolerances and multi-bottomed hulls. Now that you have learned about the general ship types and their roles, we can focus on a few design decisions that assist in the process. Design Decisions: General: Number of Bulkheads: The greater number of bulkheads in the ship, the better a ship can be sealed off from out of control fires and preventing flooding of the rest of the ship. Reinforcement of Bulkheads: The greater the reinforcement of the bulkheads, the greater chance your ship will not founder against enemy shells (due to spaced armor) and the resistance in water pressure they can take from flooding. Armor Composition: The higher quality the armor plating, the lighter the armor is; allowing for more of it and increasing the overall strength, allowing for less armor to block the same caliber shell as more armor of an inferior quality. Anti-Flood: The higher the value, the faster it is to recover from flooding and to pump out water from affected sections. Torpedo Bulge: The higher the value, the better protected your belt armor is from torpedo attack. Number of Hull Bottoms: The higher number of bottoms to the hull, the more resistance the ship has to torpedoes and flooding caused by shell damage. Citadel Armor Scheme: Usually the higher, the better. Go for all or nothing as soon as it is unlocked. It provides the best protection for a warship. Superfiring Turrets: On cruisers onward, when technology is available, you will have the option to mount super firing arrangement of turrets. This allows the turrets to be on different elevations and thus increase the angles at which you can get more turrets to fire. This design decision is at the cost of a less stable ship in the long run. Side mounts and casemate guns: These are best used on older dreadnought battleships which allow more big guns and casemate mounted secondary guns to be aboard ship. The cost is limited angles of fire for those side mounts and casemates. Note that center firing ships along with sometimes super firing placement is a much better way to get more guns on target. Main Gun Turret Placement Schemes: Practical Turret Configuration Legend: A-D: Forward Turrets L-O: Amidships Turrets W-Z: Aft Turrets - : Funnel, Tower or Obstacle Balanced Gun Scheme(A-X, AB-XY or ABC-XYZ): These ships have an equal number of primary turrets on the forward and afterward end of the ship. This has the advantage of being on par with a standard comparable enemy compliment of primary weapons bringing their armament to bear as they are advancing, chasing or retreating. The disadvantage is that unless you expose at least a bit of your broadside, which is safer for angling or go completely broadside on to your enemy (where your armor is at its weakest point) you can end up limiting the amount of turrets able to fire at them by up to half. To make sure you only expose a small broadside and thus retaining an advantage to angling your armor, make sure all primary turrets have the best firing angles that you can design into it. This design decision is best for any Modern Battleship and Pre-Dreadnoughts. It is also ideal for Battlecruisers and Non-aggressive Cruisers. Time for aiming for the turrets on the opposite end of the ship takes slightly more time than Centerline mounted 360 degree Turrets. All Forward Gun Scheme(ABC or ABCD): These ships are best used when advancing at an angle as it can get its super firing guns on target and not have to turn broadside on which lowers the effective thickness of the armor. Effectiveness is reduced when kiting away from the enemy as not all primary guns can get on target. It is a better idea than the afterward scheme only if at least one gun can fire back when retreating. To maximize efficiency and survivability of this design, place the primary armament in such a way that the turrets have the best firing angles. It is Best for Pure Aggressive Modern Battleship with good enough armor. This configuration is also okay for aggressive Battlecruisers, but not recommended. It presents a severe handicap to Firepower when retreating directly away. All Afterward Gun Scheme(XYZ or WXYZ): These ships are best used when retreating at an angle as it can get its super firing guns on target and not have to turn broadside on which lowers the effective thickness of the armor. Effectiveness is reduced when advancing toward the enemy as not all primary guns can get on target. It is the worst battleship gun arrangement idea and defeats the purpose of such ships to have such a thing as a “fire when retreating battleship.” No historical Battleship design or any capital ship has this arrangement. Majority Forward Gun Scheme(ABC-XY or AB-X): These ships have most of their primary armament towards the bow, allowing for fights advancing towards the enemy with greater firepower advantage than comparable balanced turret layouts, though when turning away it can turn away with only the standard amount of turrets able to fire back. To maximize efficiency and survivability of this design, place the primary armament in such a way that the turrets have the best firing angles. It is an okay Configuration for BBs if wanting to be aggressive, while still being able to fire back while retreating directly away. It is better than All Forward scheme for retreating BBs who angle while retreating to get more than average guns to bear. Configuration is also ideal for maneuverable Battlecruisers and Aggressive Cruisers. Majority Afterward Obstructed Gun Scheme(AB-XY-Z, or AB-WX-YZ): These are used mostly on older ships of a Japanese or British variety and contain the majority of superfiring guns placed amidships or further aft with a secondary tower in between a superfiring pair on the stern. This design has the advantage of being able to fire a large broadside while kiting away, but comes with the disadvantage that you have to expose a lot of broadside to get all the guns firing and when you are advancing you could be at a slight disadvantage. To maximize efficiency and survivability of this design, place the primary armament in such a way that the turrets have the best firing angles. It is the second best configuration for Dreadnoughts and Super Dreadnoughts. Though, it is not recommended for Modern Battleships, Battlecruisers or Cruisers. Broken Non-Super firing Centerline Gun Scheme(A-L-O-X, A-L-M-O-X or A-L-M-N-O-X): This gun scheme is used by the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union in their early to mid 1940s battleship designs. It consists of at least four primary turrets being put in a centerline row between towers, funnels or other obstacles and at least one turret at the bow and the stern. The guns are arranged in such a way that nearly all of the guns have 360 degrees of rotation and/or the highest angles of fire possible. The turrets can sometimes be grouped in two turret centerline arrangements between obstacles, but it is a rarity for this design. This design also implements the mandatory use of triple turrets, allowing more firepower in a smaller package. This design has caveats in the form of needing to expose some broadside for the most afterward gun house to fire which can cause partial penetrations on the deck and that advancing straight on has the least effectiveness of the ship in a chase using this configuration. This configuration is best for Dreadnoughts and Super Dreadnoughts. It is not recommended for Battlecruisers or Cruisers. The configuration could do well on a modern Battleship if you make sure all turrets can rotate 360 degrees for maximum field of fire. A good modification is to implement super firing turrets on the bow and stern so you can get more guns on target as long as you have room to turn them 360 degrees. Getting guns on target is easier with this battleship configuration than any other. Design Tenets: The Importance of Torpedoes: Any ship can use torpedoes; however the most valuable assets to your fleets for torpedoes are the destroyers. Although cruisers can be armed with a strong torpedo armament, it is ill advised as they are considered capital ships. Although torpedo boats can be designed in greater numbers with more torpedoes, it is a poor investment for an otherwise poorly armed and armored ship which only has a speed advantage over the destroyer. Most heavy cruisers have medium sized torpedo armament of up to two ranks of triple tubes per side of the ship so that it can fire. The importance of torpedoes for destroyers is that it needs to be able to fire a spread from as many angles as possible and thus, the torpedoes must be accommodated for the best angles of fire and be centerline mounted. Cruisers use torpedoes as situational firepower to impede the advancing of enemy forces while retreating from the fight, to increase its damage output against bigger surface vessels and to make targets easier to hit with their guns by forcing them to sail to avoid the torpedoes. Pre-Dreadnoughts, Dreadnoughts and even some modern battleships had torpedoes; however only on pre-dreadnoughts and some dreadnoughts does this make sense. The modern battleship engages at ranges where torpedoes are only effective at melee self-defense ranges if destroyers get through the other defenses of a battleship. Dreadnoughts and Pre-Dreadnoughts engaged at comparatively short ranges to make it easier to hit each other with lower technology driving their gun directors. Also, if one of those ships couldn’t harm another, an underwater torpedo launcher would be the best way to hurt more protected enemy ships as most from that era had minimal torpedo protection. Only some super-dreadnoughts implemented torpedo protection by the end of World War I. The Importance of Secondary Guns on Capital Ships: It may be less accurate than your main guns to engage surface targets with smaller secondary guns, but it can actually help damage larger ships and help deter smaller ones from coming in range. Secondary guns can be as small as destroyer caliber or sometimes smaller depending on your technology. They can also be as big as light or even heavy cruiser strength if you are fully decked out as a top of the line super battleship. The more consistent you are with secondary guns in your design, or having more of the same gun on the ship, the easier it will be for you to target smaller enemies that might threaten your capital ships. It also helps for accuracy in the long run. The German Strategy for getting the main guns to hit the target is simple: Put shells on the target. By rapid firing the secondary armament, it can assist the main armament in dialing in their rangefinders to cause devastating results on the target ship. It also provides a way to target the smaller ships when your main guns would rather be busy on another target. Think of a single cruiser or battleship without secondary armament having to fight a small fleet of destroyers screening for a battleship or cruiser. You do not want to split targets with your primary armament for accuracy reasons and since you have no secondary armament you cannot target those smaller ships while focusing on the bigger threat. Thus you will have to prioritize the most immediate threat first. In this case, the destroyers would get the pounding while the enemy battleship idles away lobbing high caliber shells at your battleship with no ability to fire back without a drop in accuracy. If you focused the battleship though, which is the poor choice, the destroyers would launch torpedoes while trying their best to set fires and cripple your chance to fight back at the battleship or even sink you outright if you do not maneuver to avoid the torpedoes, which also hurts your fire rate. One could understand the lack of secondary armament if you were screened by destroyers or cruisers to focus the small fry, but without those, you need to be your own destroyer or cruiser while still being able to engage the battleship at long range. This is the reason why the secondary armament of capital ships is there when you need to focus on two targets of different priorities with no accuracy penalty. Armor Schemes Matter – The Two Major Camps: The armor scheme of your warship really matters. Especially with low technology, it matters to maximize armor while minimizing weight to use for other weapons or other fittings which could help you achieve victory. There are two camps due to both a World War I view and a World War II view. These armor schemes are called: Turtleback and All-or-Nothing. With the British Pioneered doctrine, turtleback armor gets you increasing hull armor from bow or stern to amidships where the armor is at its thickest, however since it is with the design philosophies of World War I where engagement distances were much closer, Turtleback has an Achilles heel – This is that the hull while strong has a weakness to plunging fire from the deck which can punch through and explode in the vital parts of a ship. The Turtleback scheme, no matter your hull material, will always weigh more because you end up sacrificing a lot for increased hull armor protection. Turret and conning tower protection is also sacrificed except for the largest and most expensive battleships. All-Or-Nothing schemes are pioneered by the World War II thinking of American Designers, by sacrificing bow and stern armor and only boxing in and internally up-armoring the essential areas that need protection from enemy fire all around. It can provide a higher level of survivability in combat with the same armor thickness than a comparable turtleback design. As such the overall weight of the armor is lighter, but still thick enough to deflect shells and protect against plunging fire. They also highly protect the fire control systems in the superstructure and all primary turrets to make sure that they are not easily knocked out. More advanced All-Or-Nothing schemes pioneered a triple deck armor layout that gave the enemy shell an arming point at the deck, while letting it bounce off the armored underdeck and explode in the non-essential part of the ship. By doing this, it prevented causing citadel damage or an ammo detonation. This design also comes with a caveat. Because the armor is focused only in the vital areas of the ship, other armor piecing shells hitting the bow or stern at a flat angle will over penetrate and cause flooding and without enough compartments to contain the flooding and efficient damage control precautions, the ship will still be sinkable. Torpedo protection and hull bottoms are also external belts of armor that is added to the existing citadel or to the keel which can assist in protecting the ship from torpedoes and provide more adequate protection from gun hits as well. All battleships and battlecruisers should have torpedo protection as torpedoes are a high threat to these capital ships. Well, that about wraps up my blurb about ship design. However this is no definitive guide to how to design your ships in the game. I am simply providing a historical background to how in real life, naval architects designed such ships to fight for their respective navies to achieve supremacy. Good Luck and Happy Building!
  5. Okay, I assume being given the cold shoulder means I messed up in what I was trying to ask here after 3 days waiting to hear back from you. At this point I am dying to upgrade to the limited edition anyway since it is only $10-20 difference so please just start a dialogue with me to get that process started. Please PM me with the details as soon as possible. If I had known that the page on steam early access was in a state that would not allow me to play anyway until formal release, then I would have splurged on Limited the first time. I beg the Dev team's pardon.
  6. I have purchased the standard edition and received the confirmation email. The game is on steam early access as a page so why haven't I received a key yet? Is it because the game needs to be available on steam early access before I get a key? I have checked my spam folder, no such email has been received. In essence, I would like to know two things: 1. How are we looking on the Q1 2020 estimate for getting a key if you purchased standard edition; i.e. is this prediction by your team still accurate. 2. If it is greater than Q1 2020 on the estimate, may I inquire as to upgrading to the Limited Edition?
  • Create New...