Do you think we will see the "ridiculous" hull designs?

[Ishtar]

16 hours ago, RAMJB said:

 

The Tillman battleships are smaller than the Yamato hull we already have in game anyways, and with the 90,000 ton limit in Rule the Waves their presence was only hindered by lack of sextuple turrets (doesn't stop the 7x quad turrets from surpassing it anyways)

[RAMJB]

35 minutes ago, Ishtar said:

The Tillman battleships are smaller than the Yamato hull we already have in game anyways, and with the 90,000 ton limit in Rule the Waves their presence was only hindered by lack of sextuple turrets (doesn't stop the 7x quad turrets from surpassing it anyways)

Uhhhhhh no. While It's true that some of the previous subdesigns were similar to Yamato's size, those didn't make the cut. the Tillman Battleships (the ones that were presented in front of the congress) were of the IV sub-design. 72.500 tons displacement standard. That's around 9.000tons more than a Yamato. Or put in from another perspective: Tillman IV=Yamato+Pensacola. 

Don't forget either that the Tillman design proposals dated from 1915-16, that is, 25 years before Yamato were a thing and a time where around 30.000 tons were seen as already expensive and pushing the limits for a battleship (the New Mexico class being just finished by that time displaced 32k). And their "proposal" (everyone knew it was just a study, not a serious design to be built) was roughly 250% bigger than the larger thing the US was fitting out at the time. You can not establish similarities between Yamato and the Tillman battleship, given that they were separated by 25 years. What was ludicrously expensive and just barely possible in 1940 was beyond the realm of being so 25 years before.

Again, put it into perspective, the Tillman "maximum" battleship  was as if someone when Iowa was just being completed came and presented a proposal for a battleship of 250% her size, so around 115.000 tons, and dimensions beyond anything the US could build at the time (which puts it squarely into H-44 displacement range, btw). Could the US have built such a ship in 1945?. Well they put a man on the moon on a 9 year notice, so obviously it would't have been impossible - a crash program to upscale shipyards to build them and infrastructures to handle them was possible, but it'd been a FAR larger investment than just building the ships - and they'd ended up with a 115.000 ton massive warship still very limited operationally and that would've completely tipped off the scales of cost-effectiveness.

That 25 years later the 100k ton displacing Nimitz supercarriers were approved for constructions, and not much later we had aircraft carriers displacing 100.000 tons doesn't mean that by 1945 proposing such a ship was anything but an impossible task to accomplish. Or at least a such expensive one as to make it completely unworthwhile. Same story with comparing the Tillman proposal with Yamato. 25 years separate them. 



My point is that absurd warship sizes grew at the same rate standard warship sizes - what was impossible in 1915 might have been just barely doable in 1945, the same as what was impossible in 1945 was barely doable in 1977. But at their respective moments of relevance, both the Tillman and the H-44 were ultimate unbuildable monsters by an industry that still wasn't anywhere near capable of building them - and beyond that, both were also impossible to put in service given the extreme operational needs ships that size would've demanded, and that existing infrastructure at the time wasn't anywhere near capable of managing, servicing and keeping ships that size operational either.

I'm not against ships that size being buildable "per se" in the game...but I want them to be exactly as unviable as they were in real life. As it is this game is an excellent tool to understand the compromises and decisions made in battleship design in the 1900-1940 era - and to check out how different trends than the ones that prevailed might have worked out. it's not out of scope for it to allow the player to build ridiculously oversized ships, but then the game also has to tax the player with the burden of investing on shipyards big enough to seeing them completed, to then investing on infrastructure big enough to handle them, to them invest the disproportionate ammount of money demanded by such monsters to be kept on an operational footing.

Edited November 30, 2019 by RAMJB

[ThatZenoGuy]

I don't get this logic of "In reality they didn't make the ships, ergo they could not have possibly existed"

Japan went from 30-40 thousand ton ships to their 70 thousand ton Yamatos, a pratical doubling of ship size overnight.

It took much effort and resources, but it happened none the less.

If America, Germany, etc really wanted some 100 thousand ton monster ship, they could have done it. It was simply not practical.

[Fishyfish]

41 minutes ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

I don't get this logic of "In reality they didn't make the ships, ergo they could not have possibly existed"

Japan went from 30-40 thousand ton ships to their 70 thousand ton Yamatos, a pratical doubling of ship size overnight.

It took much effort and resources, but it happened none the less.

If America, Germany, etc really wanted some 100 thousand ton monster ship, they could have done it. It was simply not practical.

Ahem. Suez, Panama and Kiel canals would all like a word with you. 

Also over night? You mean 16 years from the launch of the last of the Nagato's to laying down the first of the Yamatos? 

They used over 140,000 tons of steel for just the two battleships, not even counting the Shinano which was converted to a carrier. That's a lot of steel, even for pre-war japan. No other country would have done it because it was not practical. Half the point of the various naval treaties were to put an end to empire ruining spending. Even the most powerful obsolete weapon is still obsolete. 

[RAMJB]

5 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

I don't get this logic of "In reality they didn't make the ships, ergo they could not have possibly existed"

Japan went from 30-40 thousand ton ships to their 70 thousand ton Yamatos, a pratical doubling of ship size overnight.

It took much effort and resources, but it happened none the less.

If America, Germany, etc really wanted some 100 thousand ton monster ship, they could have done it. It was simply not practical.

Japan's investment went far beyond what the avobe poster mentioned. And in fact it is a very good instance of what I said. Yamato was on the verge of the impractical at the time of her construction. Still japan went with her and her sisters. What did that entail?.

-to begin with an immense expenditure on the warships themselves. 65000 tons of displacement per hull on a class where no cost was spared, meant those warships were massive resource hogs at a key time of critical expansion for the Japanese navy, as they left the London treaty. Not only on cash, high quality steel, and massive armor plates, but also on a ludicrous ammount of man work hours that couldn't be spared in order to expand the navy in other critical areas. 

-To follow on they're a perfect instance of what I meant about extra associated costs on infrastructure. Japanese industries couldn't manufacture armor plate of the thickness and sizes demanded by the design - so they had to be overhauled to be able to. Similar story with the gun manufacturers. And the builders themselves had the worst part of it: there was no naval shipyard in Japan able to build those behemoths when they were designed. All three shipyards involved in the program were unable to build them, because their shipyards (already the largest in Japan) couldn't build a ship that size. Which of course meant a massive cost to expand them BEFORE the ship's keels were even laid down. Kure and Yokosuka naval shipyards and Mitsubishi at Nagasaki had to receive significant expansions before they could build the ship. On top of that special drydocks had to be prepared for none in Japan was able to accomodate ships that big during refits or repairs. All that extra cost went on top of an insanely expensive class on itself. And I'm just naming a few things here. The list is long.

-As a little addendum here, all those investments had one, and just one, use. No other japanese ship needed a Drydock big enough to hold a Yamato. No other design demanded shipyards that large. Those immense expansion costs were paid exclusively to use four (ended up being just two in the end) warships in the whole navy. Talk about cost-effectiveness...or lack thereof. 

-Operationally speaking Japan was on a very particular position in what regards to shipbuilding. See, every other major navy in the world had -by force- to limit their designs size in order to make those ships viable for operational use. The UK and France had to keep their ships at limited sizes to transit the Suez Canal, for instance, to accomodate for their worldwide naval commitments. The US designers were pretty much forced in the way they designed their ships because of the overriding need of making the ships able to transit the Panama Canal. Ditto with the Germans, for whom being able to use the Kiel Canal to let the fleet transit easily from the baltic to the North Sea was not negotiable. Italy on her part was focused on naval warfare on the Mediterranean, a relatively small sea with large portions where draft considerations were vital in order to make the ships able to operate in certain shallow draft regions.

Japan, thus, was on the unique and priviledged position of being largely focused on operating on an open ocean, the Pacific, and the SEA naval regions. They weren't forced  to limit their design specifications to accomodate for transiting Suez or Panama or Kiel, for obvious geographical reasons. The Yamato proposal "flew" for them amongst many others, because that very reason - no other navy would've committed to a ship that size and draft knowing they'd be unable to use vital waterways for the interest of their respective navies.


But also operationally speaking we saw that Yamato and Musashi didn't do much in the war. Not that the Japanese navy didn't need them, or not that they could've not made use of them. When Washington and South Dakota reduced Kirishima to a smoldering burning wreck in Guadalcanal, the warship that should've been there should've been either Yamato or Musashi - ships which were specifically designed to fight in numerical inferiority yet prevail through sheer size and power. But what was sailing in Ironbotton Sound that night was a WWI refurbished battlecruiser instead, while Yamato and Musashi were chilling at Truck. Why?.

Well, firstly because those ships were the cream and pride of the Japanese Navy. Not to mention, they were the most expensive ships the world had ever seen. They didn't want to risk them on a "secondary" theater when their much sought after "final battle" wasn't happening yet. Now if anyone notices the irony, or rather, the contradiction of building ships that then you'll be just too scared to send to fight battles in the biggest war the world has ever seen, he's got a good analytical capability. A weapon that you're too scared to use, just in case you lose it, is a weapon you probably should've never invested in, in the first place.

But even more importantly, because had the Japanese actually wanted to actually use them in Guadalcanal, they probably couldn't have. The Yamatos were ships with a pretty long range due to their size allowing for tremendous fuel bunkerage - but their fuel economy was a disaster. Those ships drank fuel like there was no tomorrow. And given that Japan wasn't exactly living in abundance of fuel (shortages were acute throughout the war, specially so in the last 2 years), and given the logistic demands to keep those insanely thirsty ships filled up (meaning, lots of tankers shuttling from Japan to their station base at Truk), there was little real option to redeploy them to Rabaul to do the fast in&out sorties Hiei and Kirishima tried to and were sunk when doing. As I mentioned in my previous post - ships that big entail impressive logistic costs, big enough to seriously handicap their true ability to operate in many spots.

Yamato and Musashi spent three years being 65000 ton steel scarecrows. Then they took part in operations when they were just too late, on the verge of being suicidal (Leyte) or directly to somehow reach Okinawa and attempt beaching there - because the ship had not enough fuel for a return trip (Yamato's last sortie). And don't get me started about Shinano.

That's quite the return for the investment demanded by the two most expensive ships (by far, including all associated infrastructure enlargement costs they demanded; three if we count Shinano in, which we should) ever built to that point. They were so big, they ended up being outrageously expensive. And they ended up being so priceless and invaluable because of their cost, as to be useless in the biggest war the world has ever seen.

That's the resumé of the Yamatos, ships which were on the verge of the possible during their time. And here people are talking about 73000 ton Tillmans in 1916 or 120.000 ton H-44s in the 40s. See now why I say that those would've been nothing short of impossible?.
 

Edited December 1, 2019 by RAMJB

[ThatZenoGuy]

5 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

Ahem. Suez, Panama and Kiel canals would all like a word with you. 

Also over night? You mean 16 years from the launch of the last of the Nagato's to laying down the first of the Yamatos? 

They used over 140,000 tons of steel for just the two battleships, not even counting the Shinano which was converted to a carrier. That's a lot of steel, even for pre-war japan. No other country would have done it because it was not practical. Half the point of the various naval treaties were to put an end to empire ruining spending. Even the most powerful obsolete weapon is still obsolete. 

You can bypass Panama? Go around? 

Same with Suez unless you want to get into the med.

And Kiel can be ignored if you build past it, and ignore Baltic.

I fail to see how any of these 'stop' such ships from being made. It just makes them more annoying to make or limits their range of operation.

 

[RAMJB]

Bypassing Panama means going all the way around Cape Horn, which isn't the most pleasing cruise. It also means extra weeks of time, so you can forget about anything like fast redeployements between oceans. Not to mention the logistical problem because ships need to have the range to do the whole trip (not the shortest one ever). Transferring ships from the Atlantic Fleet to the Pacific Fleet (and viceversa), something the US did constantly during WW2, would be a nightmare of epic proportions. Foregoing the usage of the Panama Canal meant any ship transferring from one fleet to the other would be unavailable for both fleets for the much extended transit time, and in the middle of a war you don't want your expensive battleships either to be isolated in one of the oceans, or be forced to be out of action for weeks for BOTH FLEETS in case of a needed transfer for the duration of it. Needless to mention that there might be submarines lurking on the way on areas impossible to patrol (while doing a transit through Panama meant sailing through heavily patrolled home waters in the caribbean) wasn't the least of the concerns either.

When the US Supercarriers were first proposed (USS United States class), a huge part of the political ongoing budgetary fight between Air Force and US Navy went around the fact that those ships couldn't go through Panama, severely limiting their strategic flexibility and reaction time (while, the USAF argued, their long range bombers could go either west or east with their bombers no problem at a moment's notice, and thus they were much more deserving of the very limited funds available in the immediate post-WW2 demobilization era). That fight was overwhelmingly won by the USAF, the supercarriers cancelled, and had not the Korean War happened, showing the inquestionable usefulness of the carrier in conventional conflicts vs the almost nonexistant involvement of the USAF Strategic Bomber force, the US Navy probably would've had to send most of it's carriers to the Mothball fleet, let alone build any supercarrier.

With the Forrestals it finally happened that major US capital ships were unable to use the Panama Canal. That caused quite a logistical problem for the US Navy, one they finally were forced to accept because there was no way those enormous carriers could fit through the Canal. But one of the main reasons to push for nuclear power for carriers and carrier escorts as hard as the US Navy did in the 60s on the face of critics of how expensive it was, was, precisely, to compensate for the fact that the conventional propulsion carriers could have problems doing the Atlantic-Pacific transfer in the middle of a war due to their limited range vs the unlimited one nuclear power entailed (not to mention, that transit could be only done at cruise speeds by conventional powered carriers while still needing underway refuelling that would slow them even more - nuclear ones could do the transit at full speed, escorted by their nuclear escorts, thus shortening the transit time by more than a third without ever needing to refuel). And they got their way (because their points were impossible to discuss). That's how important the Panama Canal is for the US Navy.


Suez same story, probably even worse overall. This one I don't need to talk much about, the Suez Canal was effectively closed for transit for 3 years between 1940 and 1943 and the effects on the british war effort on both the Middle and Far East are just there for you to find about.

Kiel can NOT be ignored "ignoring the Baltic". Mostly because the baltic was 75% of the coast of pre-WW2 Germany,  the center of the german vital supply of scandinavian iron, the place where all sea trials of the major german surface vessels took place. If you're going to ignore that much of your own coastline foregoing the use of capital ships there then the question begins to arise about wtf you need capital ships for to begin with. Much less enormous, incredibly expensive, ones.

Also some of the most important german shipyards, drydocks and repair shops were based in the baltic, and would be unusable without the kiel channel (unless you took the scenic route around denmark which the germans knew only too well it would be mined into oblivion in the case of war, as it happened both wars). Not to mention that basing your major surface ships on the north sea ports left them open for enemy recon and air raids.as Gneisenau was unlucky enough to find out. Meanwhile basing them on the baltic ports would make them relatively safe from both.

Oh, and the soviets had a navy too.


It's just plain to see how not meeting the requirements of being able to sail through those vital waterways would be a massive "no go" for the navies of the time which were expected to need them in the middle of a war. Control of such vital chokepoints (And other, natural ones, like the Straits of Gibraltar, or the Bosphorus) has been a dominant strategic consideration in every navy since they were built, and of an impossible to emphasize enough importance.

And for that reason no navy was willing to give up their ability to use them unless complete, overriding, and unquestionable demand to do so. Which is quite understandable.

Edited December 1, 2019 by RAMJB

[Hardlec]

Okay:

Historical limits are reasonable, but:

If someone wants to build a Cthulhu Battleship, and they do, I'll watch the video with enjoyment.  I won't build one, or play against one.  

A game is supposed to be fun.  Sometimes, no more reason than Cool is the Fuel is needed.  

[goduranus]

I would love to see 1960's 100k ton warship built in 1930 being sunk by my 1960's radar guided antiship missile built in 1930.

Edited December 20, 2019 by goduranus

[RedParadize]

Currently, biggest hull in UA:D is 120kt. already deep in the ridiculous category. 144kt is not too far from that. I am not against it. As long as it is equally ridiculously expensive!

Would be nice to have draft, shipyard etc restricting its viability trough. Just to portrait such large ship as unpractical as they would have been in reality.

[Knobby]

On 12/1/2019 at 11:10 AM, RAMJB said:

loads of "Ackchyually..."

Someone here obviously doesn't understand the premise of a 'what if...' secenario, or just plain hates fun!

Every naval warfare enthusiast has at least once imagined what it would have been like if naval aviation had not developed like it did in real life, or what crazy ships we might have seen if the arms race had gone on longer without the london and washington treaties or WW2 to restrict or cut it short.

We already have a pretty good historically acurate game, couldn't hurt to add a 'what if mode.'

And nobody would force you to use it, so pls stop trying to convice us that we don't want it or can't have it.

Edited December 28, 2019 by Knobby

[Fishyfish]

Sure we don't have to use it. But the AI will. And what fun will that be to fight against if the player is trying to stay historical? I'll tell ya, none. But hey if there's some players here who want their super weeb++ space battleship yamato then let them have it. I just want a fleshed out and historically influenced predreadnought era and I no longer think that will happen. Most of the community doesn't seem to want that so why would the devs provide it? And no, we don't have a pretty good historically accurate game. We have about 15 to 18 or so unique hulls copy paste and resized and that's it. And at this point, no I don't think we'll see any ridiculous hull designs in the sense of interesting, tumble homes, eschelon and the like, just bigger and bigger copy paste ones. 

[akd]

If strategic and budgetary limits are placed on the players, both AI and human, I don't see why there wouldn't be natural constraints or at least forced trade-offs.

[Knobby]

11 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

Sure we don't have to use it. But the AI will. And what fun will that be to fight against if the player is trying to stay historical? I'll tell ya, none. But hey if there's some players here who want their super weeb++ space battleship yamato then let them have it. I just want a fleshed out and historically influenced predreadnought era and I no longer think that will happen. [...]

Well that's why i'm talking about a mode, a game in the game. I agree it would not be fitting to put it in the main campaign, but seeing as we have the naval academy that would be the logical place for such an experimental section.

And yeah i would prefer pre-dreadnoughts over modern battleships just because that's way more steampunk and because you can actually see the enemy ships at engagement distances. But it's clear that ship has sailed, looking at what is already in the game.

[arkhangelsk]

On 12/23/2019 at 11:10 AM, RedParadize said:

Currently, biggest hull in UA:D is 120kt. already deep in the ridiculous category. 144kt is not too far from that. I am not against it. As long as it is equally ridiculously expensive! Would be nice to have draft, shipyard etc restricting its viability trough. Just to portrait such large ship as unpractical as they would have been in reality.

On the one hand, I'm leaning towards OKing it for just this reason...

3 hours ago, Knobby said:

Well that's why i'm talking about a mode, a game in the game. I agree it would not be fitting to put it in the main campaign, but seeing as we have the naval academy that would be the logical place for such an experimental section.

Let's be honest with ourselves. To ignore what will unquestionably happen next is to ignore human nature: Once it is in even a corner, the next push will be for "Let me play it in the campaign!" And then the campaign will have to be distorted to accommodate these ships. My conclusion is that if you conclude it isn't good for the campaign, resist any urges to include them at all.

23 hours ago, Knobby said:

Every naval warfare enthusiast has at least once imagined what it would have been like if naval aviation had not developed like it did in real life, or what crazy ships we might have seen if the arms race had gone on longer without the london and washington treaties or WW2 to restrict or cut it short.

We are already doing that exact What-If. It is expected we will have no planes and treaties will be an option rather than fate. However, a good what-if differs from a fantasy by taking all realistic factors (except the  bare minimum needed to switch history to its alternate track) in full rather than ignoring them. So things like canal size limitations are very realistic and necessary factors.

...

An idea would be to allow the current super BB hull to upstretch one more step and reach 150kT, but remove it from all but the Japanese and Chinese navies. It'll be kind of realistic and a bit of a playbalancing factor to compensate for the industrial weaknesses of the two Asian nations.

[Marshall99]

I hope we will get more pre-dreadnought hulls, or maybe even late ironclad hulls too. This game starts from 1890, so we should get some interesting, old ship hulls. For example USS Maine (ACR-1) hull. She is beautiful. 

In my opinion we should get more ironclad/pre-dreadnought hulls, instead of modern ridiculous hulls.

[RAMJB]

On 12/28/2019 at 2:16 PM, Knobby said:

Someone here obviously doesn't understand the premise of a 'what if...' secenario, or just plain hates fun!

And someone here obviously doesn't know how to read, or process what he's read...or (more probably) is answering to something he hasn't read at all.

Please re-read my posts again. Specifically the part where I say "sure, bring them on, but make them as costly, horribly expensive, and massively impractical, as they were in real life". You still can go for the memes. But it'll cost you. As it should.

Also:

 

 

On 12/28/2019 at 2:16 PM, Knobby said:

And nobody would force you to use it, so pls stop trying to convice us that we don't want it or can't have it.

If those designs are anywhere near viable efficiency and cost wise, and don't suffer from the inevitable logistical and strategic limitations that ships that size entail, the AI will also use them. 

If the AI also uses them, then the game de facto will be forcing ME to use them too, in order to keep at least equality in the naval arms race vs enemy nations in the campaign. I'll end up having to build a fleet of completely unbelievable ships in order to just keep pace with the AI. And that would completely ruin the immersion and believability of a campaign that's intended to put you in the shoes of being the boss of a fleet, and your decisions and compromises, tradeoffs and design doctrines, having significance as years pass, the same way they did for real fleets of the time.

And if the (immense) compromises of going and building ships of that insane size are not implemented, then the whole point of playing the campaign is lost.


So pls stop trying to argue for sci-fi stuff that would completely ruin the immersion and realistic feeling of a game intended to be, well, realistic, just because you want to have what-if fun. I'm not against it, if you want to go for the memes all the power for you, but the game should make you pay the according price for designing ships so large as to be completely impractical.

Bottom point: I'm opposite to any implementation of ships of such a size that don't make any sense whatsoever from the cost/efectiveness side of things, not to mention the strategic logistical implications and limitations imposed for the kind of stuff ships that size would've demanded, without the game represencing, and forcing down on the player (and the AI) the accordingly immense dues to pay for building and operating such monsters.

 I don't say "forbid them". I do say "make them so ludicrous as they would've been in reality". You're still free to go for that kind of stuff, the same you'll be still free to go for completely impractical designs if you want to (for instance if you want to build a ship with no turrets facing forward and three facing backs, an "anti-nelson" of sorts, nothing is stopping you but have fun in battle with such an abomination), but you'll have to pay the according price of your choices in both cases. Which is kinda the point of the campaign, after all.

Edited January 8, 2020 by RAMJB

[akd]

The way to handle that is to have the factors that argue against it well-represented I the campaign, but also an unpredictable, irrational human element that might occasionally funnel the AI into choosing that road, and at least forces the player to exchange something to avoid.  For example, the unhinged autocrat who demands a battleship of XX tonnage (calculated as a percentage over largest ship of a rival), with loss of prestige if you avoid the request.

But personally, I’m way more interested in variety and diversity on the 1890 end of things than 1930s monstrosities.

Edited January 8, 2020 by akd

[Marshall99]

21 hours ago, akd said:

The way to handle that is to have the factors that argue against it well-represented I the campaign, but also an unpredictable, irrational human element that might occasionally funnel the AI into choosing that road, and at least forces the player to exchange something to avoid.  For example, the unhinged autocrat who demands a battleship of XX tonnage (calculated as a percentage over largest ship of a rival), with loss of prestige if you avoid the request.

But personally, I’m way more interested in variety and diversity on the 1890 end of things than 1930s monstrosities.

Just like me

[Cptbarney]

Im more interesting in playing the game as it is, a sandbox builder first and foremost. I don't mind historical ships, but if there was no customisation or build your type of ship stuff as there is now, i wouldn't of paid this game the slightest bit of attention, so yes i want to see the mental stuff added in since thats fun, however make sure to add the option for those who don't want that stuff or even limit it via treaties (pre-designed or made up by yourself) to create further immersion.

Wouldn't mind seeing the game being pushed back to 1880 and having some werid designs from there to come to furition plus lots of werid hul varients and inspirations from said hulls.

[Cdodders]

Hybrids

 

BattleCarriers and the like. Battleship at the front and a flight deck at the back

[DougToss]

2 hours ago, Cdodders said:

Hybrids

 

BattleCarriers and the like. Battleship at the front and a flight deck at the back

There was vigorous debate about this before and after Rule the Waves 2 came out. The general take away I got from that was, concerns about aviation facilities and centreline turrets effecting air operations aside, if your carrier is within gunnery range of the enemy you've done something terribly wrong, and if your guns are hundreds of kilometres way launching aircraft you have thousands of tonnes of paperweights. It would be better to have a cruiser and a light carrier operating in their respective roles for the same resources than to have one hybrid fulfilling only one role at a time.  

http://nws-online.proboards.com/post/33706

Edited January 10, 2020 by DougToss

[Cdodders]

15 hours ago, DougToss said:

There was vigorous debate about this before and after Rule the Waves 2 came out. The general take away I got from that was, concerns about aviation facilities and centreline turrets effecting air operations aside, if your carrier is within gunnery range of the enemy you've done something terribly wrong, and if your guns are hundreds of kilometres way launching aircraft you have thousands of tonnes of paperweights. It would be better to have a cruiser and a light carrier operating in their respective roles for the same resources than to have one hybrid fulfilling only one role at a time.  

http://nws-online.proboards.com/post/33706

Hence why I put this under the 'Ridiculous designs' thread. We should still have the option to create such monstrosities regardless of effectiveness

[DougToss]

54 minutes ago, Cdodders said:

Hence why I put this under the 'Ridiculous designs' thread. We should still have the option to create such monstrosities regardless of effectiveness

I know, I just don't know how you would get it to work in game. For instance, is it turning into the wind to launch aircraft while in the battle line? 

[WelshZeCorgi]

I think that designing these monstrosities helped engineers build better ships. Designing something ludicrous helps designers understand what the limits are and why. Kind of like how thought experiments can help solidify and understand concepts that otherwise would be difficult to understand without them. Like the shrodinger cat for quantum superposition and collapse.