Armor weight - is it too light?

[jokash]

i tried to replicate the french cruiser Algeirs from 1931 ingame and  i got a lot more armored equivalent for same tonnage and equipment.From my experience so far it does seem that armor is a little too light and you can get away with putting stuff like 200mm of extended deck armor.

[jokash]

well i just read about it more on the forum and not only is it little too light...it about orders of magnitude more light than real stuff

[Cpt.Hissy]

what about your 116000 shp vs 84000 of real Algérie?
Maybe it's engines are too light? (hello 32-knot dreadnoughts from 1920)
and many other things as well...

well thing is, every real ship could be vastly different than other ships of same era, it's not like everyone used exactly same engines, guns, armor, etc. It is impossible to generalize that tech in a way that will fit every single individual ship ever built. If it fits some, it will be off for others.

[Tycondero]

43 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Maybe it's engines are too light? (hello 32-knot dreadnoughts from 1920)

Exactly this as well! The game seems to be very forgiving for designing ships that are above 32 knots. Going beyond 32 knots really requires a lot of extra engine power, so I am pretty sure that the engine room and weight of the engines should escalate massively. For every 4 knots extra speed, the amount of power to be generated should roughly double, and so should the weight requirement for engines too.

Edited January 17, 2021 by Tycondero

[Cpt.Hissy]

getting above 20 knots, or 10 knots, isn't much easier.

[Bigjku]

2 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

getting above 20 knots, or 10 knots, isn't much easier.

From a campaign perspective for speed what you need is a limit on how many shafts you can operate (I don't think anyone did more than 4) and how much shaft horsepower you can put down each.  The USN basically seems to top out at around 212,000 on 4 shafts in this period.  There are declining returns when you go to 6 shafts (its very inefficient and the ship must be very wide).  No one seems to put a lot more than 50-60,000 SHP down a shaft.  Your practical limit for machinery is likely 200-220,000 SHP in this era.

Anything else is just fantasy talk.

[Cpt.Hissy]

there was at least one very funny boat with 6 shafts, well, you should know)
but from a campaign, and this game's perspective, all you need is to balance those values to make moar powah more expensive. Not more.
this thing with shafts and limits looks more like speculation unless you have some reliable sources

[Bigjku]

1 hour ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

there was at least one very funny boat with 6 shafts, well, you should know)
but from a campaign, and this game's perspective, all you need is to balance those values to make moar powah more expensive. Not more.
this thing with shafts and limits looks more like speculation unless you have some reliable sources

It is more a question of what a propeller can absorb at the end of a shaft.

History and Technology - Big Propellers - NavWeaps

History and Technology - Designing a Propeller - NavWeaps

History and Technology - Shafting a Ship - NavWeaps

Could it theoretically be done?  I am guessing yes you "could" get more power out of 4 shafts with a properly designed bigger propeller turning faster on the ship.  The question is can you build such a propeller for a ship.  I can't say I can do the math.  But the system happily lets you design ships that need 640,000 shaft horse power.

My main reason for suggesting a tech related limit on SHP in a campaign for example would be that it would balance ships on the high end of the tech tree.  If you want an Iowa you can do that but must accept the lighter armor to get the speed.  You can build bigger ships with more armor but they should be substantially slower.

[Cpt.Hissy]

That's interesting links, thanks for sharing. Now physical limit on power output makes sense, though i don't know what it really would be.
Yet, in this game's mechanics messing with shaft numbers and prop sizes would be overcomplication and apparently will require to overwrite some of existing logic (i believe currently there's no such thing as number of propellers, and probably the way how engine power translates into speed is also not what we would expect).

Properly balancing engine weight vs power and max weight/power per hull/class should be enough.

[Reaper Jack]

Algerie is also the example I used a ways back when I said armour was embarrassingly light. 

RL Algerie's belt armour alone (not deck or turrets) is 1,500 tons. The same belt in game was something like 450. This along with engines also being too light is the main reason all the AI ships are speed demons with insane armaments. I once saw an 11,500 ton cruisers with 15 203mm guns and a 367mm belt. That sort of belt would weight more than half the ship's entire weight in real life. 

[Bigjku]

8 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

That's interesting links, thanks for sharing. Now physical limit on power output makes sense, though i don't know what it really would be.
Yet, in this game's mechanics messing with shaft numbers and prop sizes would be overcomplication and apparently will require to overwrite some of existing logic (i believe currently there's no such thing as number of propellers, and probably the way how engine power translates into speed is also not what we would expect).

Properly balancing engine weight vs power and max weight/power per hull/class should be enough.

My suggestion would more be for campaigns.  You should limit the overall amount of SHP you can employ that reflects your investment in it.  I don’t see a need to have a number of shafts or anything like that.

So if your technology base for a nation caps you at 85,000 SHP that’s all you can do until research gets you further.  This would better balance ships of each era and force you to make choices in a campaign.

Really you could almost tie it to the propulsion type with a bit of research.

The RN topped out at 112,000 SHP with direct drive turbines (Renown Class) that required a ridiculous 42 boilers when a typical setup was 24.  Indeed Renown and QE and Revenge class are among the best spot checks for balancing things because they are largely contemporaries and use the same guns on similar sized hulls.  Renown loses well more than half the armor of the QE and a quarter of the guns to fit in all that power.

Based on the battle cruisers that came out with the same technology I suspect the sweet spot in the WWI era for efficient power was around 75,000 SHP prior to gearing the turbines which happened after Renown.

When there was then a jump to geared turbines you see it become possible to install 100-150,000 SHP in a reasonable manner and up to 200,000 plus as it’s refined.

Triple Expansion Engines probably top out at 30,000 SHP.

[madham82]

5 hours ago, Bigjku said:

My suggestion would more be for campaigns.  You should limit the overall amount of SHP you can employ that reflects your investment in it.  I don’t see a need to have a number of shafts or anything like that.

So if your technology base for a nation caps you at 85,000 SHP that’s all you can do until research gets you further.  This would better balance ships of each era and force you to make choices in a campaign.

Really you could almost tie it to the propulsion type with a bit of research.

The RN topped out at 112,000 SHP with direct drive turbines (Renown Class) that required a ridiculous 42 boilers when a typical setup was 24.  Indeed Renown and QE and Revenge class are among the best spot checks for balancing things because they are largely contemporaries and use the same guns on similar sized hulls.  Renown loses well more than half the armor of the QE and a quarter of the guns to fit in all that power.

Based on the battle cruisers that came out with the same technology I suspect the sweet spot in the WWI era for efficient power was around 75,000 SHP prior to gearing the turbines which happened after Renown.

When there was then a jump to geared turbines you see it become possible to install 100-150,000 SHP in a reasonable manner and up to 200,000 plus as it’s refined.

I like the idea for the research tree.

I always wondered why Renown and Hood could have such drastic differences in protection, be built around the same time, but have similar speeds. Geared turbines is the answer. 

[Bigjku]

13 minutes ago, madham82 said:

I like the idea for the research tree.

I always wondered why Renown and Hood could have such drastic differences in protection, be built around the same time, but have similar speeds. Geared turbines is the answer. 

The other strange thing in the game from a historic perspective is that Turbo-Electric Drive is more of a drive technology along the lines of geared turbines than it is a secondary engine technology.  Indeed if you look at a bunch of contemporary ships the Lexington Class (being the largest example of a TED installation) would develop around 40-50,000 more SHP than comparable geared turbine designs of the era for the Japanese and British.  Indeed one could argue the G3 design that followed Hood was limited by the fact that they capped SHP at 160,000 rather than the 180,000 originally planned.

Now it doesn't make a huge difference because power needs for speeds above 30 knots is so very high.  But the Lexington's would hit 34.5 knots and 202,000 SHP on trials.

To me the best way to operate the tech tree for power would be to tie it to the types of engines, move turbo electric drive to an engine type rather than an backup engine and basically do the following.

 Triple Expansion Engines- 30,000 SHP Cap

Direct Drive Turbine-  80,000 SHP Cap

Turbo Electric Drive 1- 50,000 SHP Cap, HP per ton somewhat less than Geared Turbine but its fairly close (5-10%) this represents first generation installations and is a direct drive turbine alternative.

Geared Turbine 1- 160,000 SHP Cap, higher HP per ton metric than TED

Turbo Electric Drive 2- 200,000 SHP Cap, HP per ton somewhat less than Geared Turbine but its fairly close (5-10%)

Geared Turbine 2-  220,000 SHP Cap, most efficient per ton installation you can get

Turbo Electric Drive 2- 250,000  SHP Cap this represents the further evolution of TED if there was no Washington Naval Treaty (which made the increased weight of the system unusable).

Basically the player in a campaign would be looking at picking a development path from triple expansion engines going forward.  It would lead to more unique ships and distinct capabilities.  A good article on TED below for those interested in it.

History and Technology - Turboelectric Drive in American Capital Ships - NavWeaps

[Hangar18]

On 1/17/2021 at 11:27 AM, Cpt.Hissy said:

what about your 116000 shp vs 84000 of real Algérie?
Maybe it's engines are too light? (hello 32-knot dreadnoughts from 1920)
and many other things as well...

well thing is, every real ship could be vastly different than other ships of same era, it's not like everyone used exactly same engines, guns, armor, etc. It is impossible to generalize that tech in a way that will fit every single individual ship ever built. If it fits some, it will be off for others.

Armor and engine weights/effectiveness are almost certainly off.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

Armor is fine. I have made historically accurate Iowa, Yamato, Bismarck and other ships, by setting the accurate length and armor and with their historical armor and components, and the displacement was accurate.

[Bigjku]

53 minutes ago, SPANISH_AVENGER said:

Armor is fine. I have made historically accurate Iowa, Yamato, Bismarck and other ships, by setting the accurate length and armor and with their historical armor and components, and the displacement was accurate.

I think armor is fine.  Machinery weight and limits are what is off and allows for absurdly fast very large ships.  I agree historic ships are largely well able to be done.  The issue is for things beyond Iowa and Yamato.  There is a reason the larger gun Yamato proposal was a 6 gun ship.  Not just upscale to 9 20 inch guns.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

1 hour ago, Bigjku said:

I think armor is fine.  Machinery weight and limits are what is off and allows for absurdly fast very large ships.  I agree historic ships are largely well able to be done.  The issue is for things beyond Iowa and Yamato.  There is a reason the larger gun Yamato proposal was a 6 gun ship.  Not just upscale to 9 20 inch guns.

Well, the 20 inch guns were noticeably heavier than the 18 inch ones, so it trader amount of guns for caliber, I guess...

 

I have been doing tests designing 69,000 ton ships and 130,000 ton ships, using, mostly, the same armor arrays and armament.

 

A 130,000 ton ship can have a belt and extended belt about 25% thicker than its 69,000 ton contemporary, but that’s about it. And, well, I think it makes sense that a ship that is like 50m longer can have more weight in armor. Otherwise, why make such a large hull, if not to make it heavier and be able to displace more without sinking?

[Reaper Jack]

2 hours ago, SPANISH_AVENGER said:

Armor is fine. I have made historically accurate Iowa, Yamato, Bismarck and other ships, by setting the accurate length and armor and with their historical armor and components, and the displacement was accurate.

I've made all those same types with roughly historical equipment and vastly superior armor, and by vastly I mean in the region of 30-40% better. Armor is too light. The OP for this thread uses the Algerie as the example, where in game the armor weighs one third of what it did irl for equal belt thickness. I've seen Heavy Cruisers of 11,000 tons with 300mm+ belts in game as well while still sporting 15 guns and going 30 knots. A LOT of the weight mechanics are completely off. I can design the same ship in RTW with about the same parameters and the weights given are completely different. 

[jokash]

I present you the ATAGO :historical armor belt armor 127mm ingame 575mm (five times ticker!!!) (more than Yamato)

                                           historical turret armor 25mm ingame 207mm

 

Not to meniton other armor weights but it seems the figure is about four or five times as lighter than real life.This game has some serious weight issues.

[coalminer]

dont take my word for it but i seemed to recall in some other discussions that the armour slider would also account for armour tech? e.g. putting 10" of armour with 50% modifier armour tech would be actually putting only 5" of armour on the vessel.

i.e. the armour values are of the base equivalent (similar to using RHA as a base unit), so you would instead of putting on 10" of Krupp IV plate, actually be 10" iron armour worth of Krupp IV or something along those lines.

That said the designer is confusing as heck and many of the game mechanics are not well polished (and i hope placeholders). I had some 1913 12" guns destroy the vessels conning tower despite packing on 25" of armour and getting weird behaviour when vessels have some disparity in tech levels.

Edited February 1, 2021 by coalminer

[The Land]

1 hour ago, coalminer said:

dont take my word for it but i seemed to recall in some other discussions that the armour slider would also account for armour tech? e.g. putting 10" of armour with 50% modifier armour tech would be actually putting only 5" of armour on the vessel.

i.e. the armour values are of the base equivalent (similar to using RHA as a base unit), so you would instead of putting on 10" of Krupp IV plate, actually be 10" iron armour worth of Krupp IV or something along those lines.

That would probably explain it, though it's very confusing to people who don't carry around RHA equivalence tables in their head

If that *is* the case then I would suggest that the designers show the actual thickness as the thickness value, and also give a 'points' score (maybe based on mm of RHA) so people can see the relative value of the protection...

Bonus points if the game models the fact that case-hardened armour e.g. Krupp has no value if it's less than 3in thick....

[7thGalaxy]

1 hour ago, coalminer said:

dont take my word for it but i seemed to recall in some other discussions that the armour slider would also account for armour tech? e.g. putting 10" of armour with 50% modifier armour tech would be actually putting only 5" of armour on the vessel.

i.e. the armour values are of the base equivalent (similar to using RHA as a base unit), so you would instead of putting on 10" of Krupp IV plate, actually be 10" iron armour worth of Krupp IV or something along those lines.

That said the designer is confusing as heck and many of the game mechanics are not well polished (and i hope placeholders). I had some 1913 12" guns destroy the vessels conning tower despite packing on 25" of armour and getting weird behaviour when vessels have some disparity in tech levels.

Can you confirm this? I've been reducing my armour as I've upped the techs! 

[jokash]

4 hours ago, coalminer said:

dont take my word for it but i seemed to recall in some other discussions that the armour slider would also account for armour tech? e.g. putting 10" of armour with 50% modifier armour tech would be actually putting only 5" of armour on the vessel.

 

Thats 575mm of Krup IV so best quality

Edited February 1, 2021 by jokash

[madham82]

The armor quality value does work that way. 100% value equals 2x the indicated thickness in Iron, not whatever armor type is selected (i.e. Krup IV). So 50% quality value for 10" of Krup I is equal to 15" of Iron. 

[coalminer]

6 hours ago, 7thGalaxy said:

Can you confirm this? I've been reducing my armour as I've upped the techs! 

Cant quite remember where i read this, might even be getting confused with some other games. But i think it would be more apt for the devs to respond on the armour mechanics rather than my postulation.

Just some more wild guesses when going into the game and leaving the armour values as 10" (again with the 10" example cause i really dont wanna do maths right now) and changing the armour quality starting with the lowest tech and up only seems to reduce the weight, so in this case something else is giving which i can only assume the 10" in the armour field stays as 10" of iron plate but in weight equivalent of Krupp IV. Another wild guess is that the use of a base unit (i think its iron armour?) is why some late tech guns have ridiculous amounts of penetration compared to their real world counterparts.

3 hours ago, jokash said:

Thats 575mm of Krup IV so best quality

Ironically, I'm purely educated in the metric system but for ships its just soooo intuitive to go with inches... even comparing things like tanks, planes, etc mm RHA is alot easier for me to handle... maybe its just that the numbers get bigger with mm and it gets lost somewhere in the calculations 😰