Clown Car Thread

[o Barão]

"If the AI manages to waste all its displacement on rows of subcaliber single-mount turrets on both sides"

If you didn't noticed, that is the Minotaur and Warrior class cruiser hull. That is exactly how that ships where build.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur-class_cruiser_(1906)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior-class_cruiser

"blocking the firing arcs of its few decent guns"

As i said from the beginning , the only thing wrong imo is that small secondary secondary limiting the main turret arc in the middle.

"produce a slower, weaker, and more fragile ship for it, that's simply not a competitive design for the era."

So you are comparing your designs, where you know what to use and focus , and ignore what is not relevant to win the game to an AI coded to be able to use all options. Well all my ships are superior to the AI , and are usually cheaper.  That is an issue to how balanced are the components Now about the turret layout in that ship, apart from that small secondary turret as i said before, there is nothing wrong. Is your personal taste about what should be done that can't accept different possibilities.

[DougToss]

@o Barão, I think the issue is that there is more to Pre- and Semi-Dreadnought design than a slapdash mixed armament arrangement. 
 

Just like rules and templates for all-big-gun ships would help, more consistent logic to the early firepower schemes would be good too.

[neph]

11 hours ago, o Barão said:

"If the AI manages to waste all its displacement on rows of subcaliber single-mount turrets on both sides"

If you didn't noticed, that is the Minotaur and Warrior class cruiser hull. That is exactly how that ships where build.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur-class_cruiser_(1906)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior-class_cruiser

"blocking the firing arcs of its few decent guns"

As i said from the beginning , the only thing wrong imo is that small secondary secondary limiting the main turret arc in the middle.

"produce a slower, weaker, and more fragile ship for it, that's simply not a competitive design for the era."

So you are comparing your designs, where you know what to use and focus , and ignore what is not relevant to win the game to an AI coded to be able to use all options. Well all my ships are superior to the AI , and are usually cheaper.  That is an issue to how balanced are the components Now about the turret layout in that ship, apart from that small secondary turret as i said before, there is nothing wrong. Is your personal taste about what should be done that can't accept different possibilities.

These are ships out of a 1920s campaign. Your Armoured Cruisers are a decade earlier. Building obsolete ships is clown car

[Littorio]

Point of order...what is the screenshot button in UA:D?

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, neph said:

These are ships out of a 1920s campaign. Your Armoured Cruisers are a decade earlier. Building obsolete ships is clown car

So the Nelson BB designs are also a clown car? They didn't have any main they in the stern. Are they obsolete? 

[Stormnet]

3 minutes ago, o Barão said:

So the Nelson BB designs are also a clown car? They didn't have any main they in the stern. Are they obsolete? 

What does Nelson having forward main batteries have to do with the AI building mixed calliber ships well after the introduction of the dreadnought?

Edited December 4, 2021 by Stormnet

[o Barão]

2 minutes ago, Stormnet said:

What does Nelson having forward main batteries have to do with the AI building mixed calliber ships well after the introduction of the dreadnought?

Repara na primeira coisa que ele reclamou sobre o design. Que tinha que mover a torre do meio para a proa para aumentar o ângulo de tiro. Que isso não fazia sentido. Seguindo a mesma lógica , então os Nelson BB também não fazem sentido para ele. Ou será que fazem? 

[Stormnet]

2 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Repara na primeira coisa que ele reclamou sobre o design. Que tinha que mover a torre do meio para a proa para aumentar o ângulo de tiro. Que isso não fazia sentido. Seguindo a mesma lógica , então os Nelson BB também não fazem sentido para ele. Ou será que fazem? 

Mas faz sentido. Aquela torre tripla está bloqueada pelas baterias secundárias laterais, e o ângulo de tiro sofre por causa disso. Claramente tal disposição nunca permitiria disparar para trás, mas podia estar de uma forma em que podia ter um arco maior.

Podia substituir aquelas torres secundárias singulares por umas duplas e puxar para o lado, movendo também aquelas torres pequenas para outro lado onde não atrapalhavam, e assim tinha-se um arco de fogo lateral maior (e com menos peso).
Ou então podia mater aquelas torres todas, puxando-as para à frente com a superestrutura traseira, e assim colocava aquela primária atrás com um arco maior para à lateral (conseguiria disparar mais para a frente) e com a capacidade de disparar para trás.

Os Nelson eram incapazes de disparar para trás, mas não bloqueavam a torre C com secundárias que restringiam desnecessariamente o seu arco lateral.

 

De qualquer das formas, não é a única falha deste design da IA. Utiliza secundárias de alto calibre semelhante às primárias (o que não acontece deste os semi-couraçados [descontinuados após o primeiro couraçado com calibres uniformes]) em torres singulares, para desnecessariamente acrescentar peso, e só tem 8 canhões secundários de baixo calibre, o que remove o propósito da existência destes visto que são insuficientes para as tarefas de baterias secundárias.

 

[o Barão]

10 minutes ago, Stormnet said:

Mas faz sentido. Aquela torre tripla está bloqueada pelas baterias secundárias laterais, e o ângulo de tiro sofre por causa disso. Claramente tal disposição nunca permitiria disparar para trás, mas podia estar de uma forma em que podia ter um arco maior.

Podia substituir aquelas torres secundárias singulares por umas duplas e puxar para o lado, movendo também aquelas torres pequenas para outro lado onde não atrapalhavam, e assim tinha-se um arco de fogo lateral maior (e com menos peso).
Ou então podia mater aquelas torres todas, puxando-as para à frente com a superestrutura traseira, e assim colocava aquela primária atrás com um arco maior para à lateral (conseguiria disparar mais para a frente) e com a capacidade de disparar para trás.

Os Nelson eram incapazes de disparar para trás, mas não bloqueavam a torre C com secundárias que restringiam desnecessariamente o seu arco lateral.

 

De qualquer das formas, não é a única falha deste design da IA. Utiliza secundárias de alto calibre semelhante às primárias (o que não acontece deste os semi-couraçados [descontinuados após o primeiro couraçado com calibres uniformes]) em torres singulares, para desnecessariamente acrescentar peso, e só tem 8 canhões secundários de baixo calibre, o que remove o propósito da existência destes visto que são insuficientes para as tarefas de baterias secundárias.

 

Mas aquele design é exactamente para usar varias secundarias de alto calibre nas laterais. Repara que ele so depois menciona que é na campanha de 1920, não no inicio. E ai eu concordo inteiramente que esse casco não devia estar disponivel mais. Mas suponho que seja uma questão de haver poucas opções disponiveis os devs tenham tentado minimizar essa deficiencia dando uma vida extra a cascos antigos. Devemos culpar a AI por fazer uso correcto do casco como ele foi desenhado de inicio? É que se é para usar isso como parametro então a lista vai longa. Bem longa.

 

"Aquela torre tripla está bloqueada pelas baterias secundárias laterais,"

Repara que o problema mesmo . é aquela pequena secundaria. E concordo plenamente que está errado. Mas esse pequeno erro , embora seja um erro não indica que o layout possa ser inviavel. Se usando esse pensamento então podesmos descartar tudo o que jogo está tentando fazer numa "historia alternativa" e apenas usar o que é aprovado por um comite de jogadores? Qual é o interesse nisso? 

[AurumCorvus]

17 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Mas aquele design é exactamente para usar varias secundarias de alto calibre nas laterais. Repara que ele so depois menciona que é na campanha de 1920, não no inicio. E ai eu concordo inteiramente que esse casco não devia estar disponivel mais. Mas suponho que seja uma questão de haver poucas opções disponiveis os devs tenham tentado minimizar essa deficiencia dando uma vida extra a cascos antigos. Devemos culpar a AI por fazer uso correcto do casco como ele foi desenhado de inicio? É que se é para usar isso como parametro então a lista vai longa. Bem longa.

 

"Aquela torre tripla está bloqueada pelas baterias secundárias laterais,"

Repara que o problema mesmo . é aquela pequena secundaria. E concordo plenamente que está errado. Mas esse pequeno erro , embora seja um erro não indica que o layout possa ser inviavel. Se usando esse pensamento então podesmos descartar tudo o que jogo está tentando fazer numa "historia alternativa" e apenas usar o que é aprovado por um comite de jogadores? Qual é o interesse nisso? 

Honestly speaking, I do agree with you that both concepts are fine.

The N3/G3 design (what you referred to as Nelson, but probably more accurate to say N3/G3), by itself, is fine. It places a turret right on the middle spot, negating a lot of balance issues. It also gives excellent space to layout a secondary battery. That is not an issue.

The concept of high caliber secondaries on the CA itself (like the Minotaur and Warrior class) is fine as well. It's not ideal, as we know from 20/20 hindsight, but it's fine to explore in a game. Besides, navies did build it. And while 1920s is a bit pushing it, both types of cruisers were in service all throughout WWI until the 1918s. And, while WWI made money a bit short in the aftermath, it's not really pushing it to think that such a ship could've served until mid-1920s if it had been really necessary.

My issue with 'clown car'-ing the ship is when you combine both concepts, especially since the Q turret is rear-facing. A rear-facing Q turret, obviously, has it's best arcs while facing backward. It has a quicker traverse, better lines of sight, etc. (Conversely, note how the Nelson's C turret is forward facing, giving it excellent traverse and line of sight for forward fire). Unfortunately, this is then blocked by the high caliber secondaries. These limit the aft arc of fire extremely heavily. I'll ignore the small turret as some quirks are to be expected. Even still, though, unfortunately, the cruiser kills its rear-facing fire. For most of the rear arc, it can only get a single barrel on an enemy to its rear. When it starts to turn, it might be able to bring two/three barrels from the secondaries before the Q turret. However, what makes it definitely clown-car is the fact that the front turret (the A turret) will potentially get a firing line to the aft prior to the Q turret because of its superfiring nature in the middle of a turn.

Okay, I lied about not talking about the small turret. I could still maybe support this ship if that small turret wasn't there. Like I said, I have no issues with an N3/G3 arrangment, and it can potentially result in a much better fire arc forward for the Q turret (because of the lack of blocking secondaries/superstructure, a ship doesn't have to turn as much to train both guns forward). Unfortunately, the small turret kills it as well.

In summary, each concept the AI tried to apply was fine by itself. However, when it combined the two, it created a horrible clown-car ship. Finally, the AI itself hiccupped during precision surgery and killed it's only potential redeeming factor by placing those small turrets.

[neph]

On 12/4/2021 at 4:11 PM, AurumCorvus said:

Honestly speaking, I do agree with you that both concepts are fine.

The N3/G3 design (what you referred to as Nelson, but probably more accurate to say N3/G3), by itself, is fine. It places a turret right on the middle spot, negating a lot of balance issues. It also gives excellent space to layout a secondary battery. That is not an issue.

The concept of high caliber secondaries on the CA itself (like the Minotaur and Warrior class) is fine as well. It's not ideal, as we know from 20/20 hindsight, but it's fine to explore in a game. Besides, navies did build it. And while 1920s is a bit pushing it, both types of cruisers were in service all throughout WWI until the 1918s. And, while WWI made money a bit short in the aftermath, it's not really pushing it to think that such a ship could've served until mid-1920s if it had been really necessary.

My issue with 'clown car'-ing the ship is when you combine both concepts, especially since the Q turret is rear-facing. A rear-facing Q turret, obviously, has it's best arcs while facing backward. It has a quicker traverse, better lines of sight, etc. (Conversely, note how the Nelson's C turret is forward facing, giving it excellent traverse and line of sight for forward fire). Unfortunately, this is then blocked by the high caliber secondaries. These limit the aft arc of fire extremely heavily. I'll ignore the small turret as some quirks are to be expected. Even still, though, unfortunately, the cruiser kills its rear-facing fire. For most of the rear arc, it can only get a single barrel on an enemy to its rear. When it starts to turn, it might be able to bring two/three barrels from the secondaries before the Q turret. However, what makes it definitely clown-car is the fact that the front turret (the A turret) will potentially get a firing line to the aft prior to the Q turret because of its superfiring nature in the middle of a turn.

Okay, I lied about not talking about the small turret. I could still maybe support this ship if that small turret wasn't there. Like I said, I have no issues with an N3/G3 arrangment, and it can potentially result in a much better fire arc forward for the Q turret (because of the lack of blocking secondaries/superstructure, a ship doesn't have to turn as much to train both guns forward). Unfortunately, the small turret kills it as well.

In summary, each concept the AI tried to apply was fine by itself. However, when it combined the two, it created a horrible clown-car ship. Finally, the AI itself hiccupped during precision surgery and killed it's only potential redeeming factor by placing those small turrets.

Agree with your assessment--I wouldn't have a problem with either layout concept were it in isolation, and maybe not even combined. What really makes me judge it is that it managed to spend all its displacement on this silly blend of concepts & resultingly gimped itself in literally every other category: speed, protection, durability, cost...

[Littorio]

It appears the AI does like this design given what you have said here. Seven 5in guns, all too crowded and with terrible angles of fire. The worst is the single, rear turret behind the others. That's basically useless.

[Airzerg]

После последнего обновления ИИ стал слишком часто использовать именно этот дизайн.

[akd]

What is the basis for these fully-enclosed "Mark 1" 5-inch, 6-inch and 7-inch turrets for light cruisers?  Not that any gun should be be placed 3 in a row on the front or back like that, but these look especially silly.

[slayer6]

I just had a battle in Campaign where Britain made a "Battlecruiser with less armor than a snowblower, but has more than enough firepower to take out half of DC"...

It literally had 6" of armor for it's Belt... and 14" of armor on its triple 15" turrets... and nowhere else!  On the other hand I had my Upgunned Hipper class with 4x twin 11" Mk V, firing Super Heavy shells...

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

In my current 1930 campaign, the British are fielding a heavy cruiser, that would make Kitakami sit in the corner and cry. 

20 launchers per broadside (yes, that's 40 launchers in total) with increased reloads for a total of 120 torps.

Of course, it's speed and armor is pitiful and it only carries 7" guns but hey, torps for the win, lol.

 

They also have a BB with decent armor, carrying 16, 8, 5, two kinds of 4, 3 and two kinds of 2 inch guns and a couple of torpedo launchers - and has a top speed of 19.4 knots.

[DougToss]

14 hours ago, slayer6 said:

I just had a battle in Campaign where Britain made a "Battlecruiser with less armor than a snowblower, but has more than enough firepower to take out half of DC"...

It literally had 6" of armor for it's Belt... and 14" of armor on its triple 15" turrets... and nowhere else!  On the other hand I had my Upgunned Hipper class with 4x twin 11" Mk V, firing Super Heavy shells...

Reminds me of arguably Jackie Fisher’s worst idea. More here.

My larger point - with all paper projects - is that there’s a reason these things weren’t built.

 

[SiWi]

12 minutes ago, DougToss said:

Reminds me of arguably Jackie Fisher’s worst idea. More here.

My larger point - with all paper projects - is that there’s a reason these things weren’t built.

 

but wasn't the "Outrageous class" build? So... what I want to say: you are right that most terrible design don't will be build, but there are exceptions.

Edited December 12, 2021 by SiWi

[RedParadize]

I must admit that I find that one pretty cool:

[akd]

Do the torpedoes hide behind the ship’s boats all the way to the target. 😛

[Grayknight]

German engineering at its finest (1910)

[ThatZenoGuy]

3 hours ago, Grayknight said:

German engineering at its finest (1910)

Oh this one is just plain disgusting. Jesus christ.

[akd]

“Vat if we give battlecruiser 10” secondaries?”

”Ja! Vat if we give battlecruiser only 10” secondaries?”

Edited December 14, 2021 by akd

[RedParadize]

Allots of funnels


...specially for a ship that only go 16.4knots!

[Grayknight]

 

(removed pictures)

 

Edited December 25, 2021 by Grayknight