Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Memorial for my favorite ship design, the K type Battlecruiser (and an impassioned plea to the devs)


Recommended Posts

As you probably all know by now, Core Patch 0.5 dropped today. Overall, the opinion has been positive, but I personally hate this update. There's nothing wrong with it per se, and I like the features that it added, however it's the features that were removed that hurt me so much. 

For the longest time, I had been doing some experiments with the French Experimental Battlecruiser II hull to try to create my ideal ship: a fast, durable, and versatile platform that can kill cruisers like a battlecruiser should and compete toe to toe with battleships. This gave me the K-type Battlecruisers, a series of designs for a 33 knot BC armed with 3 triple 18-inch guns and a variable secondary battery mainly consisting of 3 triple 6-inch guns. This was enough firepower to stand up to any ship in the game, even the 100k+ ton behemoth BBs that the game loves to throw all the time. 

In later versions of the design, 12 inches of belt armor, 9 inches of deck armor, Krupp IV, and a true all or nothing armor scheme (0 extended) gave the ship the survivability it needed to hold the line against battleships. The only ships that could deal significant damage were ones with 19 and 20 inch guns built for high pen. 

All of this together made an excellent ship that was a joy to play. Watching a K-type Battlecruiser tear up enemy ships became a sort of constant for me, since no other ship I designed could reach the level of performance of a K. I rebuilt the designs so much that I memorized the steps needed to place every component in the correct spot to get a perfect weight balance every time.

So, when I heard that Core Patch 0.5 would allow me to build my own fleet around my favorite ship, I was excited. I waited for the patch to drop, then waited through two delays until this morning. Then, I opened the game, started up a 1940 French BC vs British BB scenario like I had so many times, went into the builder, and was instantly confused. The Exp. BC II hull didn't have access to anything bigger than 15 inch guns anymore. What is a 15 inch gun going to do to a behemoth BB with 80-90% resistance stacking? Give the ship a massage?

I figured it was a bug, so I went to the forums and asked about it in the feedback thread.ooooooof.PNG.088ab9272894269b4a581c8e4f3e35d9.PNG

The response absolutely crushed me. The one thing I wanted more than anything from this update was gone. Not only do I not get to design a fleet to sail with my K-types, I don't even get my K-types anymore.

So, here I am remembering all the fun I had with my K-type designs while they lasted. I should have taken more screenshots when I had the chance, but I didn't think the devs would ever do this to me. I'll do my best with the screenshots I do have though, so let's take a trip down memory lane.

This is the very first version of the K-type Battlecruiser I ever made. It looks significantly different from the most recent design, but the basic idea of a 33 knot BC with 3 triple 18 inch guns is there. I think this version has a one triple 8 inch gun as its secondary battery (this is a Japanese ship on the French hull) and 2 triple long lance launchers, one on each side.

1319474320_DesktopScreenshot2021_09.14-16_54_29_51.thumb.jpg.9b45ac23a0ed18c55fc81f4ce4ba2523.jpg

Eventually, I added a heavier secondary battery of 3 triple 9 inch guns and more, albeit smaller torpedo tubes.

169316435_ProjectAT1935ManyBulkheads.thumb.jpg.4732a06c3df2228d690dced4f85b3534.jpg

That design then got upgraded to 1940 tech, with the same basic idea.

909273675_ProjectK1940Balanced.thumb.jpg.b7f0bbacb8673db42416d8382afdc1ce.jpg

It was at this point that I hit my current "shorten the citadel more" way of thinking which lead to a new design with the Compact Secondary Tower. This also had the advantage of giving a proper superfiring platform to the rear secondary guns, finally allowing them to properly superfire.

874259842_IstillthinkDieselsarebetter.thumb.jpg.a735628eb66ba5a3392741188d378ef3.jpg

From here, I ended up dropping the secondary battery from 9 inch down to 6 inch guns so that the main battery accuracy wouldn't be negatively affected by the mixed main battery penalty. I also implemented a proper all or nothing armor scheme, with the 0 extended sections designed to allow shells to overpenetrate instead of exploding inside the ship.

515085794_DesktopScreenshot2021_08.11-17_28_17_76.thumb.jpg.e2a9c87414ff55012adc34eb656b54d7.jpg

This design proved to be my most successful, and this version of the K-type Battlecruiser would become my favorite, with only a few minor tweaks to torpedo placement happening between this and the most recent version.

Along with the history of the ship, I also have two beauty shots of the recent all or nothing versions. I think this design below is the same as the one in the screenshot above.

1839265857_DesktopScreenshot2021_07.15-20_44_30_71.thumb.jpg.82e4e91471520cf62f3c1cb2af7818b3.jpg

I could definitely feel the power behind these guns every time they fired!

The second screenshot is a testament to the survivability of the K-type; I think I took this right before landing a battle-winning salvo.

1782844339_DesktopScreenshot2021_08.28-15_18_40_91.thumb.jpg.cd921b5af057130d134ece5343666e92.jpg

You can tell the ship has taken quite a beating, but she's too good to go down quietly, and I won't let her.

Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts has always been a game about interesting ships and pushing the limits of ship design. We're allowed to build battleships that can potentially carry 52 20-inch guns. We're allowed to build destroyers that fly through the water at 60 knots. We're allowed to build cruisers with enough torpedoes to turn the ocean white. What's wrong with a battlecruiser that can take on battleships without being at a massive disadvantage? 

As Nick stated, the point of these battlecruiser hulls was their high speed, not necessarily their firepower. However, if we're going to invest in a 65k ton BC, what's the point if we're stuck with the same guns that we could fit on a ship that's half the displacement. Plus, it's not the size of guns on a ship that affect it's speed, it's the weight of the ship and the shape of its hull. As long as we can fit the guns within the displacement limit of the hull, what's wrong with having an oversized gun for the ship class? Hell, real ships exist with battleship guns on the displacement of a moderately sized light cruiser (see HMS Erebus).

So, for the sake of fun designs that let us push the limits of naval engineering, give us 18 inch guns back on battlecruiser hulls. While you're at it, why not open up more gun sizes to more classes. It would give us more opportunity for interesting designs and let us choose what we want to do with our ship classes without being confined by historic precedent. 

If that's not possible, at least implement some way to revert back to previous versions of the game so I can build my favorite ship again.

I've had so much fun with this game, much of it powered by the K-type designs. I hope that after reading this, you'll agree that this design deserves a place in the game.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

> Plus, it's not the size of guns on a ship that affect it's speed, it's the weight of the ship and the shape of its hull. As long as we can fit the guns within the displacement limit of the hull, what's wrong with having an oversized gun for the ship class? Hell, real ships exist with battleship guns on the displacement of a moderately sized light cruiser (see HMS Erebus).

 

A potential compromise you could make is to make beam restrictions for high-caliber turrets. Historically, turret placement (and turret size) was constrained by the beam of the ship in a given location due to the structure required to support very heavy turrets. As design moved towards fast battleships & battlecruisers, this became a major constraint due to the hydrodynamic shaping of the hulls.

You know how there are limits to how far forward/back you can place modules? Maybe those could vary by the weight of the turret--you'd be able to place 2/3" all the way up, USS North Carolina-style, and you could fit 18" on a battlecruiser--just maybe not 3/4 turrets without a very compact superstructure. Conversely, on large late game hulls, it wouldn't be a problem to fit a worrying amount of 14" guns on, if you feel so inclined.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda hope it gets reverted (and other BCs get it too as I am a huge fan of BCs) as at least in the US BCs were defined as ships with battleship calibre weapons that sacrifice armour in order to fit larger machinery so there is no reason you cant have a 20" armed battlecruiser with this definition

Edited by ChryssyH117
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ChryssyH117 said:

I kinda hope it gets reverted (and other BCs get it too as I am a huge fan of BCs) as at least in the US BCs were defined as ships with battleship calibre weapons that sacrifice armour in order to fit larger machinery so there is no reason you cant have a 20" armed battlecruiser with this definition

True but that doesn't mean "all guns that can possibly fit on a battleship"
I'd think 18" dual turrets would be a fair maximum, 18" quads, not so much at 1940s. Maybe single barrel 20"

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Commander Reed said:

Somebody really loves their Battlecruisers 😂

I kinda have an opinion battlecruisers could have worked great IRL if they were just armoured up a little more and had better protocols and training instead of leaving every flash door open, would have been interesting to see what a thoroughbred BC could have been

Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I think theyd be best suited to raiders either as fast moving heavy gunboats to quickly dispatch enemy cruiser fleets, escorts for transports giving weapons that can ward off larger surface raiders and leaving BBs to be utilised elsewhere, using them as pack hunters they could potentially beat out larger ships simply due to being able to outmanoeuvre large ships and use co-ordinated crossfires. oh well least games like this do give the ability to test out potential ideas like this!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ChryssyH117 said:

I kinda have an opinion battlecruisers could have worked great IRL if they were just armoured up a little more and had better protocols and training instead of leaving every flash door open, would have been interesting to see what a thoroughbred BC could have been

Since you are referring to the British experience at Jutland, look at the other side in that battle too. German BCs were a great example of balancing. 

1 hour ago, Drenzul said:

Yeah but that was a problem, a little more armour and they are barely faster than BS.

But yes IRL as was said
"Mistakes were made, expensive mistakes"

Used together as a pack they could hunt down and take out most other ships including BSes.

No the issue that ended the BC concept was the Fast Battleship (i.e. Hood) and the treaties afterwards. While she wasn't armored as well as QE when completed, the differences weren't as significant in expected battle ranges. She was a far more effective design because of her speed advantage over traditional super dreadnaught designs, especially for a country with a large overseas empire like the UK. 

Also BS is not the accepted acronym for Battleship (more commonly used for a certain kind of fecal matter :) ). That is BB. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2021 at 5:42 PM, vyprestrike said:

As you probably all know by now, Core Patch 0.5 dropped today. Overall, the opinion has been positive, but I personally hate this update. There's nothing wrong with it per se, and I like the features that it added, however it's the features that were removed that hurt me so much. 

For the longest time, I had been doing some experiments with the French Experimental Battlecruiser II hull to try to create my ideal ship: a fast, durable, and versatile platform that can kill cruisers like a battlecruiser should and compete toe to toe with battleships. This gave me the K-type Battlecruisers, a series of designs for a 33 knot BC armed with 3 triple 18-inch guns and a variable secondary battery mainly consisting of 3 triple 6-inch guns. This was enough firepower to stand up to any ship in the game, even the 100k+ ton behemoth BBs that the game loves to throw all the time. 

In later versions of the design, 12 inches of belt armor, 9 inches of deck armor, Krupp IV, and a true all or nothing armor scheme (0 extended) gave the ship the survivability it needed to hold the line against battleships. The only ships that could deal significant damage were ones with 19 and 20 inch guns built for high pen. 

All of this together made an excellent ship that was a joy to play. Watching a K-type Battlecruiser tear up enemy ships became a sort of constant for me, since no other ship I designed could reach the level of performance of a K. I rebuilt the designs so much that I memorized the steps needed to place every component in the correct spot to get a perfect weight balance every time.

So, when I heard that Core Patch 0.5 would allow me to build my own fleet around my favorite ship, I was excited. I waited for the patch to drop, then waited through two delays until this morning. Then, I opened the game, started up a 1940 French BC vs British BB scenario like I had so many times, went into the builder, and was instantly confused. The Exp. BC II hull didn't have access to anything bigger than 15 inch guns anymore. What is a 15 inch gun going to do to a behemoth BB with 80-90% resistance stacking? Give the ship a massage?

I figured it was a bug, so I went to the forums and asked about it in the feedback thread.ooooooof.PNG.088ab9272894269b4a581c8e4f3e35d9.PNG

The response absolutely crushed me. The one thing I wanted more than anything from this update was gone. Not only do I not get to design a fleet to sail with my K-types, I don't even get my K-types anymore.

So, here I am remembering all the fun I had with my K-type designs while they lasted. I should have taken more screenshots when I had the chance, but I didn't think the devs would ever do this to me. I'll do my best with the screenshots I do have though, so let's take a trip down memory lane.

This is the very first version of the K-type Battlecruiser I ever made. It looks significantly different from the most recent design, but the basic idea of a 33 knot BC with 3 triple 18 inch guns is there. I think this version has a one triple 8 inch gun as its secondary battery (this is a Japanese ship on the French hull) and 2 triple long lance launchers, one on each side.

1319474320_DesktopScreenshot2021_09.14-16_54_29_51.thumb.jpg.9b45ac23a0ed18c55fc81f4ce4ba2523.jpg

Eventually, I added a heavier secondary battery of 3 triple 9 inch guns and more, albeit smaller torpedo tubes.

169316435_ProjectAT1935ManyBulkheads.thumb.jpg.4732a06c3df2228d690dced4f85b3534.jpg

That design then got upgraded to 1940 tech, with the same basic idea.

909273675_ProjectK1940Balanced.thumb.jpg.b7f0bbacb8673db42416d8382afdc1ce.jpg

It was at this point that I hit my current "shorten the citadel more" way of thinking which lead to a new design with the Compact Secondary Tower. This also had the advantage of giving a proper superfiring platform to the rear secondary guns, finally allowing them to properly superfire.

874259842_IstillthinkDieselsarebetter.thumb.jpg.a735628eb66ba5a3392741188d378ef3.jpg

From here, I ended up dropping the secondary battery from 9 inch down to 6 inch guns so that the main battery accuracy wouldn't be negatively affected by the mixed main battery penalty. I also implemented a proper all or nothing armor scheme, with the 0 extended sections designed to allow shells to overpenetrate instead of exploding inside the ship.

515085794_DesktopScreenshot2021_08.11-17_28_17_76.thumb.jpg.e2a9c87414ff55012adc34eb656b54d7.jpg

This design proved to be my most successful, and this version of the K-type Battlecruiser would become my favorite, with only a few minor tweaks to torpedo placement happening between this and the most recent version.

Along with the history of the ship, I also have two beauty shots of the recent all or nothing versions. I think this design below is the same as the one in the screenshot above.

1839265857_DesktopScreenshot2021_07.15-20_44_30_71.thumb.jpg.82e4e91471520cf62f3c1cb2af7818b3.jpg

I could definitely feel the power behind these guns every time they fired!

The second screenshot is a testament to the survivability of the K-type; I think I took this right before landing a battle-winning salvo.

1782844339_DesktopScreenshot2021_08.28-15_18_40_91.thumb.jpg.cd921b5af057130d134ece5343666e92.jpg

You can tell the ship has taken quite a beating, but she's too good to go down quietly, and I won't let her.

Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts has always been a game about interesting ships and pushing the limits of ship design. We're allowed to build battleships that can potentially carry 52 20-inch guns. We're allowed to build destroyers that fly through the water at 60 knots. We're allowed to build cruisers with enough torpedoes to turn the ocean white. What's wrong with a battlecruiser that can take on battleships without being at a massive disadvantage? 

As Nick stated, the point of these battlecruiser hulls was their high speed, not necessarily their firepower. However, if we're going to invest in a 65k ton BC, what's the point if we're stuck with the same guns that we could fit on a ship that's half the displacement. Plus, it's not the size of guns on a ship that affect it's speed, it's the weight of the ship and the shape of its hull. As long as we can fit the guns within the displacement limit of the hull, what's wrong with having an oversized gun for the ship class? Hell, real ships exist with battleship guns on the displacement of a moderately sized light cruiser (see HMS Erebus).

So, for the sake of fun designs that let us push the limits of naval engineering, give us 18 inch guns back on battlecruiser hulls. While you're at it, why not open up more gun sizes to more classes. It would give us more opportunity for interesting designs and let us choose what we want to do with our ship classes without being confined by historic precedent. 

If that's not possible, at least implement some way to revert back to previous versions of the game so I can build my favorite ship again.

I've had so much fun with this game, much of it powered by the K-type designs. I hope that after reading this, you'll agree that this design deserves a place in the game.

I myself have been put in a similar predicament with many of my favorite designs. the Hyperion and Macarthur required substantial redesigns to work in the new update. 

I'm sure the concepts of the K-type can be applied to a similar hull

now that I think about it imma go do that

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Why? Why does this thread exist? You're upset because you can't make your favorite made up boat anymore and you feel the need to make an entire thread dedicated to how you can't make the same design over and over again? Wew lad. The 'tism. 

 

I can't even make any of my favorite designs because the devs won't put their hulls into this game. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...